Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint
Raver32 writes to tell us that Microsoft will be making changes to their desktop search tool in Vista after a 49-page antitrust complaint was filed by Google. "Microsoft initially dismissed the allegations, saying regulators had reviewed the program before Vista launched. However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary."
They're putting in a link for other search providers! Boy, aren't we glad that MS obeys the spirit of the law, and not just the word.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
( "what? We did it because we were told to! Not our fault your desktop is all broke now!" )
Okay, so prolly not like that. But seriously; they could've avoided the bad PR by just responding to a quiet request in the first place, instead of being pushed into it... as usual.
I realize there's prolly some sort of 'we only do it when we have to' mentality prevalent in Redmond, but when is someone there going to realize that maybe, you know, they can take a chance and do The Right Thing - when the asking is being done quietly and politely, and not finally and grudgingly do it later when there's a big fat lawsuit or four hanging over their heads?
I know, I know... but I still have some small bit of dreamer left in me.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Also I am reminded of the fights between AOL and MSFT about allowing the PC makers to install additional icons in the desktop touting services that competed with MSN etc back in the Win95/98 time frame. AOL won, but it became irrelevant eventually. Will the scenario repeat? Has google jumped the shark?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
"In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance."
Considering how MS is reluctant to give the requisite technical information even to companies that are developing software and drivers in cooperation with MS, I am skeptical of this. More likely, they mean that by "provide technical information" they throw them a copy of "Microsoft for Dummies" and say "Deal."
Desktop search is a name for a program that constantly indexes your hard drive so the results come up instantly when you search for a file. Examples include Google Desktop Search (Win/Mac), Vista Desktop Search (Win), Spotlight (Mac) and Beagle (Lin)
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
That just raises further questions!
1. WHY such an odd (pardon the pun) number of pages?
2. What does it matter? Does anyone think that more pages = better? Did MS' lawyers see the brief and go "Shit guys, it's over 47 pages long. We better settle!"?
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Either Google wants to control our OS or media search engines have turned into whiny conglomerates that fight over whose right it is to search what. I am more concerned about Google throttling competition than MS.
Kneel before Google!
The omnipotence of GOOG is starting to get just plain scary.
Currently bidding on sig
Contrary to the title of the article...
Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint...MS hasnt agreed to do anything...
However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary.(Micorsoft,) Please define "if necessary"... is it:
Until such a definition is announced by MS, this statement doesnt mean much of anything - except perhaps as an attempt to make the general public think they are addressing the issue of choice on the public's behalf (as most of the general public will probably read into their statement in the same way that happened when the article title was created).
Just my thoughts on the matter...
-Robert
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
I'm not saying they conspired to do this but it will be almost a year from now before this is fixed. In the mean time people will get used to the built in search features created by MS. After that manufacturers can install Google desktop search and it will be easier for the user to switch back to default one. I'm not sure what exactly the problem was though. My dell came with Google search and tool bar which was an abomination before they updated it to look more like the Microsoft one.
From TFA:
The bit most interesting to me was this. Does this mean that Microsoft have done again what they were penalised for in 2000? Two of the restrictions placed upon it then were:
So, I imagine they're back to using the secret API for the Microsoft search, while slowing down the 'official' APIs third parties must use. Although the press item only has one sentence on it, this 'optimisation' issue is as important as Microsoft providing a competing product to Google Desktop Search in my opinion.
I assume the technical information handed over to Google will be details of how to access key parts of Microsoft's hidden-hook goodies?
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
The issue with your post is the statement:
The issue here is that Microsoft does not include a way to turn off its own desktop search
It does. It includes *several* ways to do so. Disable the service, use net stop, use the API.
$: locate
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Man, ya'll must be sheep. Seriously.
Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.
I find it quite unbelievable some people's feelings of entitlement. No, you are not entitled that somebody provide an OS that does what you want how you want it.
Your job depends on using Windows? Quit. It's not that hard. You are not under threat of violence. There are other jobs out there. Start your own business. Mow a lawn, I don't care. You are free people in a free society. Just choose not to participate in what you disagree with. What are you, sheep?
No, mostly you're just arm chair pundents. Debating the evilness of some entity but not getting up long enough to do something about it.
"Desktop Search" is what you turn off to gain HDD access speed, because you actively organize your personal files (unlike other schmucks).
It creates so much IO load that so far every machine I used it on got down to a crawl once it indexed a couple 100,000 files. I guess that's why they turn it off automatically once any user interaction is noticed. But by then it has consumed so much virtual memory that every other app has to be paged back in slowly. That gets better with 2 GB of memory but not much. Oh well, I guess I need 64bit and 4GB.
It helps to put the index on a different disk than your OS and your page file, but not a lot.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Well, no, not exactly.
Though I just love locate, this is a wee bit different. For one, these programs index the content of your documents as well, not just their names. As practical as locate is, it only matches your search to the list of names in the database; I cannot search for a document containing some word.
Of course, that's where grep comes in, but then, grep's database is the fscking filesystem, so it may take a while.
Besides, I can teach my father how to use Beagle. I cannot teach him how to grep.
OK, I could, but I don't have the time.
Ignore this signature. By order.
"OSX supported hardware" is not a market, it's a product. You can legally have a monopoly on a product (patent, copyright, trademark), but you can not (unless otherwise specified) have and use a monopoly on a market (Desktop computing) to give you an unfair advantage in another market (Internet Search).
Here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their online search business and (this is the illegal part) restricting their monopoly product from using someone else's online search business.
http://www.mhall119.com
a) The fact that it's called Desktop Search implies that it's directed at Joe User, who doesn't want to be anywhere near *sh
b) locate ain't exactly instant, it doesn't pull metadata, etc...
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
All proceeding as planned, it's a tempo move.
Disabling the service does not disable it for all of Vista. If you read the original complaint, that was a major issue -- some actions would still call the MS Search instead of whatever other search tool the user wanted.
Use the API? Are you certain that the API provided by MS to third-party developers is the same as the one used my MS's search? As other posters have pointed out, this has been a problem in the past with MS.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Que? Why? What's wrong with dumping all of your documents in "My Documents". Can't Windows handle that? I mean, if you have a little OCD and have the need to put all of your files into neat little folders, that is fine. But for the rest of us, saving into one big folder is just peachy as long as the OS can handle it. I do sort mine into business and personal folders, but that is about the extent of my filing. If I have a big project, it gets a folder as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
EXACTLY.
You deserve to lose all of your data if you stuff all of your files into My Documents. Or worse, C:\WP51\DOCS\
Or if you put them inOh, wait...
:%s:work:/.:g
It most certainly does disable it for all of Vista. It's disabled on the computer I'm using right now. With it disabled, the box reverts to an XP-like slow search.
If you're so concerned about the API, you don't have to use it. Just use net stop.
Since when has finding user files been a core function of the OS?
Cheering for either company is ridiculous. So Bill Gates has a few more billions than Sergei and Larry, but so what. It's not like any of us have our own private 737 to fly around in.
I like an OS to come with more stuff out of the box with every release. It's just less complicated to put in one CD and get everything - that's why I like Linux and OS/X. People have a right to make their products, however they want them. It sucks to bolt rear views on a car after the fact, and it sucks to go and download a bunch of unintegrated utilities onto your drive.
Google could have been proactive and released a Vista Upgrade for their search, with an Aero look, that shuts of Microsoft search. They could go and see every OS out there, and for Vista owners, drop down a new FireFox and a new Google Search FOR VISTA. But instead of being agressive, they cry to lawyers just like Netscape did. The result will be the same.
Microsoft delivered a new search experience with their new OS, and it is time for Google to respond with product.
I'm waiting for a new Google Search for Vista.
This is my sig.
I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?
To have an embedded search utility on an OS just seems logical. Microsoft may be hated around here, but for an OS maker to change the default search to something else just seems stupid. They are bundling it because it's an OS and it needs a desktop search.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Neihter locate nor find is a core OS function...
By resurrecting the old "forcing Coke to distribute Pepsi" canard, you've shown us just how deeply you buy into MSFT's P.R.
The real analogy here is, if Coke owned the refrigerators at 89% of all stores, and added locks to the fridge so that only they could add new product.
Microsoft "owns" the fridges, and because they're an O/S monopoly, they can't block competitors from adding similar features to the O/S. Period.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
There seems to be alot of MS hatred on /. - Microsoft IS the major OS creator for PCs. There is no good in complaining about it. Many /.'ers use Linux based OSes ALONG with MS. So why all the hatred - MOST people want to go to the store buy a computer, go home set it up and get doing what they intend to do. MOST people don't buy a PC to complain about what MS has done!
With that said, I am a developer for a corporation and we have a team of developers, each assigned a task in the application we are creating. I don't have to ask my boss for every line of code that I write or for every function that I add... Should MS ask their group of laywers if the can implement a search function to the OS they are developing??? Did MS intentionally set up the desktop search with NO provision for disabling it???
The answer to both of those questions is NO. If MS had to ask if they could develop a new function, we wouldn't be where we are in the pc world. The fact is that MS wrote a disable function - whether it was for end-user use or 3rd party use isn't known by us, but this time MS should not have backed down so quickly.
I am a user of BOTH Linux and MS VISTA & XP user... I have no loyalties to either, they both fit the need that I have for them. I'm not for MS and against Linux, I'm just saying this time Google needed to step it up...
Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me. - Martin Luther
Well, the installer for GDS could do it for them. You know, just execute a command. On uninstall, ask if the service should be started, and execute the net start command. The whole case is just stupid.
An FAQ could be posted on the web site telling them how to use the Services panel, or net start.
The whole case is ridiculous. It seems like google now wants its results to be displayed when something is searched using the Explorer box. Argh.
Gee, you didn't notice that Vista overrode the user selection of GDS and executed searches using MS's search instead? This was a prime issue in the original complaint.
I think you misunderstand the whole concept of abusing a monopoly -- most users will take the path of least resistance, and having to jump through even just two hoops is too much.
How hard was it for users to use netscape instead of IE for browsing? Pretty easy, yet the antitrust suit still stuck.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Why yes. If you're going to use Microsoft Windows Explorer, you ARE going to get Microsoft search results.
Do you (and Google) really want GDS results to be displayed here in that window instead?
Sorry, but "anti-trust" doesn't stick here. Finding files in the most efficient manner possible is a fundamental function of an OS. It will be a sad day for the legal system if MS is by order compelled to remove it from their OS.
If people are complaining about not being able to use a Google search in a non-Google product, I don't see where there's a problem(other than Microsoft being gun-shy from the word 'Antitrust'). What I'm wondering now, is if it's time to try Vista? I was waiting for the bugs to get ironed out, and if people have nothing worse to complain about than the HDD search in the OS, all of the more serious issues and downfalls must be fixed, right?
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
You know you're big when Microsoft becomes your bitch.
No but seriously, they'd just steamroller anyone else.
So they arent allowed to add valuable features to their OS any more? Maybe they should just go back to selling DOS to make sure there arent *any* of the last 20 years innovations in it.
I call shenanigans on your claim anyway. I believe indexed search was introduced into Windows with Win2k. Google's version may have been superior, but its not like they invented searching for stuff.
Well, that's not ALL we're talking about. Remember, this was an MS-made replacement for Google's desktop search and Microsoft only made it AFTER seeing Google's product, at which point they merged it into Windows at a fairly deep level.
Rubbish. Microsoft first said Vista (Longhorn at the time) would have "Desktop Search" a year before before Google's first GD beta (and two years before Apple released Spotlight). Further, they'd been talking about the broad concept since at least the mid 90s.
In other words, I don't really care what they put into their OS, but WHY they put it in there: to kill off competitors (Google) and their products.
The idea that it was a "response" to Google's product (and hence some deliberate, targeted attack), doesn't even pass the laugh test.
As practical as locate is, it only matches your search to the list of names in the database; I cannot search for a document containing some word. ... I can teach my father how to use Beagle. I cannot teach him how to grep.
There are dozens of GUI front ends to grep that deliver most of the functionality. One of the easiest to use is the KDE find utility, which can search by content, file dates and all of that. Used in conjunction with a reasonable directory structure, you can get most of the benefits of an indexing search engine witout the performance hit. Real data mining this way is tedious, however, so I'd expect there are already free tools that someone has or will make a KDE interface for.
At the end of the day the real question is if you trust Google or M$ to mine your files for you. M$ will sell you for a nickel and Google can be forced by governments. This is why free software is the answer where you are doing anything you care about.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Right, by paying firefox (and others) to default to google search.
If this is false and you know it and M$ paid you to put it here, you have just libled Google on M$'s behalf. That's nothing new to M$, which is a good reason to take a large grain of salt along when anyone starts defending M$ about anything.
I mean, really. Does Google pay KDE to make them the default search engine in Konqueror? Do they then pay Debian to do the same thing to Iceweasel and Konqueror? Do they pay me? No, I just know that Google rocks and no one is even close when it comes to quick and accurate searches. The same logic walks back up the free software chain though distributions to the actual coders. When a better search engine comes along, it's going to replace Google as the default or it will be easier to chose between them.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
>If this is false and you know it and M$ paid you to put it here,
Wait, yuore telling me the Mozilla foundation does not get money (72 million) from google to make it the default search AND I'm paid by MS because I mentioned this fact?
Are you just stupid or crazy and stupid?
It's not false at all. Google pay the Mozilla foundation for each search that's made using that search box, just as Yahoo pay them for each search made on the Asian version of Firefox, which has a different default.
Sources: Here and here.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Hold on here. Ignoring the usual "if you don't hate M$ then you're in their payroll" drivel, are you actually denying that Google pays the Mozilla foundation for defaulting the start page and search provider to them? Seriously?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
>Here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their online search business and (this is the illegal part) restricting their monopoly product from using someone else's online search business.
... desktop search... business.. hrmmmmm
No... here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their
Apple has a near monopoly in MP3 players and in their itunes jukebox. so is bundling safari with itunes using leverage in one (admittedly not illegal) market to gain market share in another legally problematic?
--Sam
Actually, it's entirely true. See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,3918 9475,00.htm
You, perhaps, need to research stuff before shooting your mouth off. In some cases it's justified, but you have just libeled Microsoft for no apparent reason. Find something new to complain about, like Office Open XML (ugh!) or something.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
How is this modded interesting ?
Well then it's a good damn thing that it's true. The Google/Mozilla deal is well publicised and it has made Mozilla a LOT of money. It is aksi the reason why the Mozilla Corporation was created.
Google and Apple have a similar deal for Safari.
I use Google because it's good. But that doesn't mean that these well-known deals don't exist.
If you think the OS was purposely degrading the performance of the alternatives you're so far off base that you strain credibility. There probably was degradation, but simply because I/O contention is unavoidable with multiple indexers (not to mention virus scanners) furiously trying to scan/index user files.
In fact, as described by http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues /2007/02/VistaKernel, Vista is the first version of Windows to support prioritized I/O, and according to the article the search indexing runs at "Very Low I/O priority" to minimize the impact on other applications.
GDS completely kicks ass.
Compared to XP, sure. Compared to Vista's built-in search (ie: what Microsoft were talking about back in 2003, a year before GDS was even in beta), not so much.
Now that GDS is available, MS have upped their game and built it into Vista, nice and deep.
No, Microsoft were going to do it long before GDS was available.
If MS address this in a future service pack, you can just bet it will be a command-line config or a registry setting that will obey the letter of the law, but be utterly useless in addressing the real complaint.
There is no "real complaint". There's just Google's baseless whining about "problems" that don't exist.
You, perhaps, need to research stuff before shooting your mouth off. In some cases it's justified, but you have just libeled Microsoft for no apparent reason.
Uh, no. First, I asked IF it was true. Second, that money is not the reason Google ends up as the boxed search engine because Firefox, Konqeror and friends are free software and the choice can be changed at any step of the way from Mozilla.org to my desktop.
This Gadzuki character was trying to make a big deal out of nothing, much like Barkto would. It's all noise and bullshit when M$ is involved.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If you think the OS was purposely degrading the performance of the alternatives you're so far off base that you strain credibility.
First of all I don't claim the performance degradation, the article paraphrases Google as claiming it. Whether it exists, or was deliberate, I have no way to know. At a minimum I'm betting MS would have tested the performance of their search vs. the established products from Google, Yahoo, etc, and so would have been aware of performance conflicts. Certainly Microsoft backed down rather quickly...perhaps they wanted to avoid even the appearance that were purposefully causing grief again.
"We will bind the (Windows) shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience." - Brad Chase of Microsoft, 1995
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Government regulators reviewed and approved Vista. Good luck to Google trying to use that antitrust conviction against Microsoft when the DoJ is giving MS the thumbs up.
Emphasis mine. Given that Microsoft is probably the most scrutinized company in the history of the world, I suspect that yes, they backed down to avoid even the slightest hint of potentially causing "grief". They are walking on eggshells.
Given the competitive situation in 1995 it's sort-of hard to argue with trying to make the integration an advantage of Windows, especially since most modern operating systems have (in one way or another) now followed suit. (Cue ex post facto "monopoly" statements here.)
Also, in Vista Microsoft actually went to the extent of reverting IE7 to being a standalone application, even though from what I've seen on the web people are actually disappointed that they can no long transparently jump between the file explorer and Internet Explorer.
Noise and bullshit - you'll find plenty of that up there in your post.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
That is incorrect. IE's search field is customizable; it defaults to Live Search but I can easily use Google, Yahoo, or whatever else I want. Google's issue is with Vista's desktop search through Explorer, which is currently tied to the indexing service built into Vista. It's easy to disable that service, but there's currently no way to tie the Explorer search box to another desktop search engine. Note that this has nothing to do with online search.
--- "The idea is to die young, as late as possible." -- Ashley Montague
Well, that's not precisely true right there. You did realise that the statements that Gadzuki character made were based on quotes by Mozilla Corporation executives? I suppose it's also worth pointing out that you can't actually change the search engine from Google AT ALL on some localised builds. How "free" is that?
Don't get me wrong, I like Firefox, and use it daily. And I sure as hell test any websites I make in it. But after the shenanigans Google's been pulling lately, I just don't trust THEM.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I'm really not trying to troll, but wasn't that based on the DB-like filesystem, which didn't make it into Vista?
Probably. Although it's not really relevant.
Also, WinFS wasn't a filesystem. It was a layer that sat on top of the filesystem. It's also (allegedly) going to be part of Longhorn server.
We are a constitutional government, which means it is not that easy to just elect leaders to change the basics. Thankfully. But corporations are an artificial construct of the Government. They are fundamentally different from other business forms. The whole "limited liability" thing is very, very powerful, and very dangerous. I do not feel bad asking my elected officials to place tighter strictures on corporations. Originally, they had much tighter restrictions than they do now.
And control of monopoly situations is one of the prime purposes of government, outside of the question of corporate power. The free market fails under monopoly conditions, as it does when there are imbalances of information, or externalities. We need government to keep the free market free, like we need a police force and government to keep us and our country free.
All the GP post is trying to say is that corporations can not run roughshod over the citizens of America. Or are you in favor of a return to some kind of feudalism?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
that would have been enough!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It is relevant, to your comment, because you compared it to Vista's built-in search (i.e., current functionality) and said MS was talking about it in 2003 (while they were talking about a comparatively different thing).
I think I understand what you mean, but, in my view, there's a big (and really relevant) gap between talking about "science-fiction" stuff (which Google is also very guilty of, in other realms) and actually delivering a first-class product, like GDS in this case.
--- "The idea is to die young, as late as possible." -- Ashley Montague
It is relevant, to your comment, because you compared it to Vista's built-in search (i.e., current functionality) and said MS was talking about it in 2003 (while they were talking about a comparatively different thing).
No, it's irrelevant, because it's a back-end implementation detail (eg: like whether the 2GB of RAM in a computer is 4*512M sticks or 2*1G stick). What Microsoft were talking about is exactly what GDS (and WDS, and Spotlight) delivered - an indexed, computer-wide search facility.
How this was going to be achieved behind the scenes is, in the context of saying "Vista will have a search facility", not important. The important, and relevant, issue is the end-user-visible functionality of GDS/WDS/Spotlight in Vista (then Longhorn), that Microsoft announced way back in 2003. Hence, the presence of that feature in Vista can not, by definition, have been in response to GDS (or Spotlight).
Obligatory slightly dodgy car analogy: In 2003, Microsoft said their next car would have 300kw of power, and a V8 engine. In 2004, Google release a turbocharger aftermarket modification kit for Microsoft's existing 4 cylinder car, boosting its output to 280kw. In 2006/7, Microsoft actually released their new car, producing 300kw, only doing it with a turbocharged V6 instead of a V8.
Point being: same functionality, different implementations.
For that significant proportion of the world that hasn't upgraded to Vista yet - there is also the problem of the IE7 search utility - it skews Google results to the US centric SERPS whichever version of Google is seleected as the search provider. Even Google seems blind to this. See http://www.turnerdow.com/seo-IE7-Search-Steal.htm for the detail.