Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough

akkarin writes "Following Google's complaint to Microsoft regarding Vista's 'desktop search,' Google claims that Vista's search has not changed enough: 'Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."'"

Comments

not component based?

[flukus]

Is it really that hard to make an open api with replaceable components. That way google could just plug in their search and have it open to the whole os. MS still seems to be stuck in the monolithic, tightly coupled programming era.

Re:not component based?

[Shippy]

Yes, actually it is really hard if you want it to be reliable, well documented, etc. Usually why APIs stay closed is because they don't meet the bar of documentation quality and in order to use it you have to overcome several idiosyncracies and have tight communication with the team that wrote the API. Probably MS didn't have enough time to make it as extensible and documented as they would've liked and maybe they figured it's just file search so keep it closed and avoid the support can of worms you would have to deal with when you open an API that isn't ready for the increased traffic.

Re:not component based?

[catbutt]

Well, it sucks to be them.

The monopoly they have has made them incredibly, incredibly rich. With it comes a cost. Things like this.

In my opinion, de facto-standard operating systems are no different than phone companies -- they tend to be natural network monopolies. It is in everyone's interest to have them open and modular so that there is competition for everything practicable. Web browsers, media players, search utilities. Just about everything but the kernel.

I guess I am the only one here wishing the government was even more aggressively leveling the playing field.

Google may be big and powerful, but they don't have a network monopoly....in almost everything they do, they compete on their merits, not on their network advantage. That is a very important difference.

Re:not component based?

[EraserMouseMan]

No. Google is stuck in the, "We can force MS to ask their users to install our software in place of theirs because MS is still percieved as a monopoly" mode. Let's see Adobe publish open APIs for their entire Creative Suite. Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy. But Google's gonna milk the perception for all it's worth.

Re:not component based?

[iluvcapra]

Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

Well they do have an API that lets you run programs on their OS, so I guess they do. Their OS isn't "open source," though their kernel is and a bunch of the underlying services are.

And FWIW, Mac OS X has an extensible public API for File Search.

Re:not component based?

[Khuffie]

For web browsers: I can install Opera, Firefox and now even Safari on Vista. Opera happens to be my favourite.
For media players: I can install Winamp, iTunes, Zoom Player and many other players. I happen to prefer Media Player.
For search utilities: I can install Google DS, Copernic. I happen to use none of them (including the built-in).
For antivirus: I can install AVG, Nod 32, Norton, etc. I happen to use AVG.

Remind me again how MS has actively blocked other companies from writing software that competes with their own? They haven't? Oh...so Google's just being a whiny little bitch here? Thought so.

Re:not component based?

[BrokenHalo]

The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy.

A plague on both their houses.

It's about time Microsoft and Google both recognised that NEITHER of them has a right to spy on the user.

Re:not component based?

[dabraun]

And FWIW, Mac OS X has an extensible public API for File Search.

Apple's API lets you USE their search feature programatically, not replace it. I think you missed the point.

Re:not component based?

[catbutt]

If you don't remember, there was a trial that forced microsoft to open up and play more fairly in those other things you mention. If the governments, as well as "whiney little bitches" weren't keeping microsoft in check, things would be a lot worse.

Re:not component based?

[traxst]

Google had become cry baby these days. I guess MS should file complaint against Google to let users have them option to choose between Live mail and Gmail email option on the google home page. Plus AdCenter and Adsense on their Ad page.

Re:not component based?

[iluvcapra]

Apple's API lets you USE their search feature programatically, not replace it.

You could replace it a couple of different ways:

• The kernel publishes all file system changes to clients that subscribe, all they have to do is open a file system descriptor on /dev/fsevents. From there you have to write your own framework for indexing the content on files as they are created or modified, which would be a pain, but you volunteered! You would have to write your own app to front-end the thing, but you could change the behavior of the "Find..." menu command in the File menu of the Finder, or at least add your own "Find with Google..." option to the file menu (with the public API). You might not be able to override the behavior of the Find box in finder windows with the public API, but you could do it with an NSInputManager class loaded dynamically. A more conforming idea would be to write a standalone app that fronts your search service and adversities itself as a SystemService so it would be available from a global menu.
• If you didn't mind Apple's indexing service (which is quite serviceable) but wanted to write your front end, you can write your own GUI to do customized searches. I've done this and it's very easy.
• If you develop a file format that Apple's content indexer can't recognize, you can write a callback function (which you ship with your application) that the content indexer can use to extract key-value pairs of content that the underlying spotlight database will store and search. (This I understand is a particular omission of Vista's find-by-content system.)

After going through this I do wonder why anybody would go to the trouble, but I suppose Google wrote their search app because they didn't have to worry about overriding the Windows service, because the Windows service didn't exist. I wonder how many small Windows devs wish they could've dented M$ a little when the Redmond guys destroyed their market by copying their little app's features and incorporating it into the OS. Google simply can, and though Apple has destroyed it's share of little shareware apps, they aren't 95% of the PC market, thus those little devs can be accused of wasting their time in the first place ;D.

Re:not component based?

[CoolCat]

Well they do have an API that lets you run programs on their OS

So MS doesn't have a API? SDK? And doesn't let you run programs?? This is probably the stupidest thing I've read on slash.

Re:not component based?

[Kangburra]

Remind me again how MS has actively blocked other companies from writing software that competes with their own? They haven't? Oh...so Google's just being a whiny little bitch here? Thought so.

So I install Opera, fine, now how do I remove Internet Explorer? I don't watch DVD's or listen to Music at work so how do I remove Media Player to free up some HDD space?
I can't! That's the problem, all the bundled shit (yes that's the quality too) should be optional AND removable.

Re:not component based?

[SnowZero]

Yes, actually it is really hard if you want it to be reliable, well documented, etc. Usually why APIs stay closed is because they don't meet the bar of documentation quality and in order to use it you have to overcome several idiosyncracies and have tight communication with the team that wrote the API. Remind me never to hire you as a programmer. Modularity and well-defined APIs help develop reliable software. I don't know who convinced you otherwise, but an undocumented spaghetti mess of an interface is not the right way to make things work.

Re:not component based?

[oggiejnr]

• In Response to 1:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system. io.filesystemwatcher.aspx - there is an unmanaged equivilant which I can't be bothered to find. As to adding to the file menu http://www.codeproject.com/shell/ctxextsubmenu.asp ?df=100&forumid=14557&exp=0&select=1294544

• In Response to 2:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa96571 4.aspx

• In Response to 3:http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms69259 2.aspx - It's a COM Component but works in the same way as you describe

So what exactly can I do extra on a Mac?

Re:not component based?

[Gadget_Guy]

Pretty much all that you have stated here could also refer to MS Windows.

• You can listen for notifications of file updates on Windows.
• If you didn't mind Microsoft's indexing service (which is quite serviceable) but wanted to write your front end, you can write your own GUI to do customized searches. There are many different ways that you can do this depending on how high level the language is that you use.
• If you develop a file format that Microsoft's content indexer can't recognize, you can implemented your own IFilter. These are used by many Microsoft Search programs, including the Indexing Service (dating back to Windows NT 4.0), Desktop Search, IIS, Sharepoint, Exchange and SQL Server. Here are some IFilters to download and try.

Like most people here, I really can't see what Google are on about. What can Google offer that can't be achieved with Microsoft's solution? Would Google Desktop Search also allow the Windows standard IFilter interface, or would all the third party solutions that use this interface suddenly stop working once Google's service is switched on?

I always thought that the search has got more useless with every version of Windows. In XP, I have copied a variable name from some source code and then pasted it into the search only to find no matches. It should have at least found the file that I copied the text from!

However, I have always switched off the Indexing Service so I didn't slow the system down for those fairly rare occasions that I need to search. Maybe this would solve my problem. After this discussion, I have been inspired to give the Indexing Service a try again. And I am certainly looking forward to trying the search in Vista. Thanks, Google!

Re:not component based?

[notaprguy]

You're clearly dense. Microsoft does more to publish their API's than any comapany in the world for a very simple reason: they want others to write software for Windows. Duh. Do a quick search on MSDN for "SDK" and you'll find dozens. There's a platform SDK for all versions of Windows. There are SDK's for other platforms as well - Office, Windows Media Player, many many others. Get educated.

Re:not component based?

[Shippy]

I don't know who convinced you otherwise, but an undocumented spaghetti mess of an interface is not the right way to make things work.

Did I ever say it was the right way to make things work? Nope, I said that this is the way of the world sometimes. Learn how to read.

Modularity and well-defined APIs help develop reliable software.

Yes, but over-engineering can happen if you take modularity (loose term, btw) too far and that can be just as devastating to a design as spaghetti code because now you're stuck supporting scenarios for which you never intended nor wanted your API to be used for. This can also increase your time to market for your product whereas if you would've just kept it closed or less modular with a couple caveats (that all internal programmers properly account for), you'd be out there making money.

Try working in a large software engineering house for several years where you have to make tradeoffs like this all the time and see what tough decisions you have to make sometimes. The software world isn't perfect and acting like you are is just you talking out your ass.

Re:not component based?

[SnowZero]

Sorry I indeed misread. I thought you were claiming "Making modular software reliable and documented is hard" rather than "Making reliable, documented, modular software is hard". Since your "it" jumped across posts, you can see how I might make that mistake.

Yes, but over-engineering can happen if you take modularity (loose term, btw) too far and that can be just as devastating to a design as spaghetti code Of course, but for things as large as searching and indexing subsystems, it would be surprising to not have it as a module. Microsoft doesn't have a great track record either, with their attempts to make IE as integrated as possible, even when it really was modular. They were actively aiming for monolithic (or plain lying, take your pick), which is sad.

because now you're stuck supporting scenarios for which you never intended nor wanted your API to be used for. Well, that never stopped MS before on any of their not-completely documented interfaces (or OSS for that matter). They are good for the things they publish (well, up until Vista at least), but real programs often end up going beyond that into gray areas that end up changing. I don't think there would be anything wrong with saying an API is not guaranteed to be supported, although given the antitrust issue I guess they would have to show that they didn't purposely aim for incompatibility with a change (like with DR DOS).

Try working in a large software engineering house for several years where you have to make tradeoffs like this all the time and see what tough decisions you have to make sometimes. That isn't the only place where complex software is written. Try entering nine international robotics competitions with fixed deadlines, testing that can't be automated since it requires the physical world to operate, the uncertainty of pitting your system against another software/hardware system that you've never seen before, and the necessity of changing it during an ongoing competition. Now do all that with a team where member skills vary from college underclassmen to PhDs.

The software world isn't perfect and acting like you are is just you talking out your ass. I never claimed to be perfect, just that modularity should come first. Look at some of the posts about the architecture of spotlight; Despite a similar setup and a shorter development time, it has several places where an ISV can hook into the system.

Re:not component based?

[iluvcapra]

I never claimed Macs were anything special, the parent simply claimed that it would be impossible to bypass Spotlight with your own service. This was never an OS X versus Windows debate.

So what exactly can I do extra on a Mac?

Apparently I can comprehend English more clearly with it.

Re:not component based?

[harmonica]

Remind me again how MS has actively blocked other companies from writing software that competes with their own?

In this case, apparently by making it impossible to replace the desktop search part of the OS in a way that doesn't slow down the whole thing.

What exactly caused that problem (laziness, Vista deadlines, differing priorities, malice) doesn't really matter.

Oh...so Google's just being a whiny little bitch here?

No, they just want their software to run properly on Vista.

Re:not component based?

[VGfort]

I say let them milk that perception, Microsoft deserves it, we need more competition in general, rather than Microsoft gaining too much domination in just about every semi-computer or computer related area.

Re:not component based?

[Khuffie]

Their software does run properly on Vista. You can easily turn off Vista's indexing search. It's a simple service you turn off, and any installer would be able to do it. Once it's turned off, there's no indexing done by Vista. What they're whining about is the fact that when you do turn off the indexing, instead of Google being able to use the default windows search field for GDS, that one goes back to the old-style non-indexed search. You can't expect to use part of the built-in OS UI for your own application, just as you can't expect Microsoft to suddenly allow applications to replace the functionality of the start button. Put a search bar in the taskbar, or in the systray that pops up with one click.

Re:not component based?

[buckheadbob]

What comes around .... Soon it may be Google that is universally perceived as the monopoly or worse. The worse refers to a perception of them as a source of user data leakage. Now speaking as someone who has been a OS implementer for many years the notion of materializing low level interfaces to internal OS code is anathema. For one thing there is the issue of integrated system testing. How do you do it? Then there are the performance and footprint trade-offs associated with redundant parameter validation. Worst of all is the following possibility: (WARNING: War story follows) I was once responsible for the design and implementation of a major mainframe DBMS. This DBMS was hosted on a number of dissimilar systems. Some of these provided interprocess communications and some did not. The primary market was the IBM 360/370 market. If you needed interprocess communications on IBM mainframes your had to write your own. The hardware command SVC (SuperVisor Call)invoked code that ran in the privileged state. This code was then linked into the operating system. The operating system provided a clean interface that specified everything down to register contents. For the first few years after releasing this code we received calls from customers blaming us for crashing their operating system or applications. My memory is that we had very few bugs in this code and they were all corrected during the beta test cycles. What often happened was that a customer would have a problem of some kind ... any kind, call in the hardware/OS vendor who would see that non-IBM code was linked into the supervisor and simply point the finger at it. The burden was on us to prove our innocence. This gives the support organization job security. Does Google really wish to assume support responsibility(blame) for malware hits, MS bugs, your bugs etc? All this for a non-revenue producing product? Why?

They have a problem with this *now*?

[Osty]

Where were they during the 5 years of Vista's development? Microsoft was touting the integrated, universal search abilities pretty much since day 1 of Vista development. There's no excuse for Google not to know about this, since there were preview and beta builds of Vista available for nearly two years prior to release. If they had a problem with this feature, they should've brought it up then, not 5 months after Vista shipped.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[sid0]

The search had been as it is for at least a year before release.

I'm quickly losing respect for Google.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Frosty Piss]

Of course they knew about it, everyone did. This is nothing more than free PR at Microsoft's expense, which isn't hard. It may be true that Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves, but this is just two mega-huge faceless corporations working the press.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[MMC Monster]

In google's defense, they had no idea that Vista would actually be released in '06.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Prof.Phreak]

Why is this such a big deal? Does Vista prevent 3rd party apps from opening files and reading contents? Or start/stop system services? I really don't see what the big deal is.

As for integrating 3rd party program into the `os search' feature, that's not MS's responsibility---Google isn't paying Microsoft's developers to make such integration possible.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[75th Trombone]

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.

(captcha: "proviso")

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Justus]

My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

After all, it would be rather simple for Microsoft to say that every feature in Vista was subject to change (which they did say, and did change many features, I might add). Then, after the issue had been dismissed once, Google would have had an even harder time bringing it up again. Now, as to whether or not this is a good move, I'm somewhat split.

I suspect that Google doesn't want to be the next Netscape and give up their leadership position due to, well, a combination of things, one of which was Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position. I don't necessarily agree with the way they're handling it, but I suppose they've got to spend their lawyer dollars somewhere--at least they're not attacking a random open source project for infringement of some sort.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Not only that... but file searching has been a part of windows since the beginning. It has also been a very basic part of all OS's.

Just because now, search engines are trying to take over the desktop... doesnt mean MS has done anything wrong.

Google's completely wrong on this, and google's desktop search sucks period. Who the fuck wants to search for files on their pc with that google web ui? Its terrible. MS desktop search is better on XP and Vista.

Google's not bitching about Apple's search either... so.. Fuck Google.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[tapo]

Supposedly Google suddenly started complaining about Vista's integrated search four days after Microsoft complained to the FTC about Google's acquisition of Doubleclick. It seems to be a "Oh yeah? Well fuck you!" move.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Zak3056]

As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly do you understand this? Facts please....

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[lakeland]

And, if you'd bothered to read TFA, you'd find Google complained about it more than a year before the release of Vista but was told repeatedly 'that isn't how the final version will be'.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[rtb61]

To be more accurate this free PR at M$'s expense seems to have turned around and bitten goggle on the arse, hard disk search, and file indexing is seen pretty much as normal part of an OS, if you do a lot of disk searching you enable it, if you don't you disable it and you use those resources for other applications.

Google is a web search engines, that keeps track of your searches, it is an email service that data mines your email, it is a micropayment service that tracks your payments, it is an advertising service that tracks you browsing the net, should it really be a disk searching service that tracks your searches on your own media and data mines that.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Dan_Bercell]

Nearly two years? Betas for Vista have been around for 3-4 years.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Tim C]

My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

The cynic in me says that it's much more expensive for MS to change the feature now, than it would have been had Google persuaded them to change it while it was still in development.

I agree with the OP - if you have a problem with a planned software feature, the time to complain is in the planning stage or at least during development. That is, if you're not trying to maximise the financial impact of any required changes.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[rcs1000]

In Microsoft's defence, they didn't actually release it until '07.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[SnowZero]

Guess what, Google complained a long time ago, but someone at the DOJ tried to get it dismissed. It turns out that DOJ official used to be a lawyer at a law firm representing Microsoft. The only thing that kept the complaint alive was action by state attorneys, who disagreed with the DOJ official's memo, and were concerned by the fact that the memo even existed:

Some state officials said they believed that Google's complaint had merit. They also said that they could not recall receiving a request by any head of the Justice Department's antitrust division to drop any inquiry. If you were a cynic before, you must really be cynical now...

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Macthorpe]

Yes, they filed back in November - 4 days before Vista's release to business. They had clear knowledge of the existence of the indexing system since 2003, and a year of beta testing. What took them so long?

The rest of your post seems to argue with itself.

You cite a memo that came from someone with an apparent conflict of interests - despite the fact that working for a company that once worked for Microsoft has absolutely zero bearing on how he does his job - and then carry on to say that the memo didn't in fact exist. Can you decide whether it was sent or not, because if it wasn't your outrage kind of falls flat.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Dan Ost]

What is a virtual monopoly?

The latest statistics that I've seen is that google has slightly more than 50% of the market, google uk has about 9% and google canada has about 3%. All together, that's less than 70% of the market.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[Blakey Rat]

If they make a big piss and moan now, they get a lot more press than if they had done it years ago when the OS features were still in development and Microsoft had just quietly fixed it. It's all PR. If Google had their way, every computer would come with no search at all and you'd have to download their toolbar for it to be usable.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[SnowZero]

Yes, they filed back in November - 4 days before Vista's release to business. They had clear knowledge of the existence of the indexing system since 2003, and a year of beta testing. What took them so long? Perhaps they were told before that the the product was in beta, and the the final release would be different. Others have claimed this, although there is little public information, so we don't know for sure. If you have evidence that Nov 4 is the first time they ever complained, I would like to see it. Anything else is speculation.

The rest of your post seems to argue with itself. You could read the article I linked. It's not that long.

You cite a memo that came from someone with an apparent conflict of interests - despite the fact that working for a company that once worked for Microsoft has absolutely zero bearing on how he does his job So, would you like to go on record that the Bush/Cheney ties with oil companies and Halliburton don't affect how they do their current jobs? After all, they cut all ties with their former employers, right?

and then carry on to say that the memo didn't in fact exist. Can you decide whether it was sent or not, because if it wasn't your outrage kind of falls flat. Um, what it means is that the state lawmakers were suprised to get a memo requesting something that no other head had ever requested. The existence of the memo is not in question, which would be obvious if you read the NY Times article. As phrased though, perhaps it is a little unclear, so here's another sentence of context:

Mr. Barnett's memo dismissing Google's claims, sent to state attorneys general around the nation, alarmed many of them, they and other lawyers from five states said. Some state officials said they believed that Google's complaint had merit. They also said that they could not recall receiving a request by any head of the Justice Department's antitrust division to drop any inquiry.

If you want to argue with facts presented in the NY Times, perhaps you could at least cite some sources.

Re:They have a problem with this *now*?

[SnowZero]

No problem. This is also the source for the November date I gave you. It goes on to make some very good points about why search isn't 'middleware', and the fact that search was never included in the 2000 judgement is a very good argument as to why Microsoft are in the clear. Wow, that article is a piece of work. It pretty much ignores all the concrete information provided in the NYT article, thus it doesn't really rebut any of the arguments with meat on them: "Bias, what bias, they are both companies! Never mind any of those pesky details like possible conflicts of interest!" What do you expect from a guy who wrote "The Google Problem" with choice quotes such as "Microsoft is hugely and increasingly transparent, and uncharacteristically so among large, successful companies." and "Who better then to judge Google as a problem than Microsoft? If Microsoft is concerned, why aren't you?" Someone who thinks Microsoft is a "hugely transparent company" is not living in the same world as the rest of us.

Not to mention that Google have been (and still are) free to put their own front end on Vista's indexer in the same way they do with Spotlight on the Mac. Except that given Microsoft's latest proposed remedy, one still can't override search in explorer or several other places, just the one on the start menu. Spotlight, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments, is actually quite modular and all the bits can be replaced or overridden. That's all Google is asking for from Windows.

Of course I wouldn't. Read this and then tell me why that argument is even coherent. Well, let's see if I can make this clear. A DOJ official with a potential conflict of interest is acting unusual and as though he actually has a conflict of interest. In the whitehouse, officials with a potential conflict of interest did unusual things as though they had a conflict of interest. You claim that the DOJ official's past has "zero" to do with how he acts now. That same unsubstantiated claim can be applied to our friends in the whitehouse. If you want to substantiate it with a "because", then I might believe you, but you simply state that he has no conflict as a universal fact.

it still does not give basis to Google's ridiculous claim that somehow Microsoft are acting anti-competitively by having a way of searching for files in their operating system. That's a complete red herring. Google isn't asking for Microsoft to refrain from having a search feature, they are just asking for a way to replace it, if the user so chooses. Of course you know that, and are just trying to exaggerate the issue to make it absurd. It's true that Google could be wrong: If search can indeed be disabled and replaced, then there's no problem for Microsoft to remedy. In that case, Microsoft should have no problem documenting how and providing this information Googla and the DOJ, and everyone can go away satisfied. So far that hasn't happened.

Re:huh

[Prof.Phreak]

I don't understand why they have to do this though.

Wait till they become a patent troll...

Stop crying about it.

[gcnaddict]

"Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"

Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place. Now they're just whining like babies. It's an operating system. I can understand concerns over Windows Media Player but the file searching mechanism in Vista is almost a necessity when it comes to finding your files. Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?

Re:Stop crying about it.

[ozmanjusri]

Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place.

Exactly.

And doing that will let any other third party considering adding value to the Windows platform know exactly where they stand.

Any investments you make on Windows will be wasted if Microsoft decides they want to "fucking kill" your company.

Re:Stop crying about it.

[Dude McDude]

Even better, when I installed Google Desktop on Vista, I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE, even though Firefox was my default browser. Don't go blaming Microsoft on Google Desktop calling up IE! Feel free to set FF as your default browser and use Vista's start menu "Search the internet" feature; you'll find that Vista's search respects your default browser setting.

Re:Stop crying about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any investments you make on Windows will be wasted if Microsoft decides they want to "fucking kill" your company. Then don't make the unwise decision to base your business around a proprietary operating system which has no future guarantee of an open and fair framework for all developers to plug their applications into. Of course I *really* doubt Microsoft would completely close up their system and use anti-developer tactics. It would be detrimental to them in a BIG way.

Microsoft needs applications like Google Desktop, even if they are competitors. The reason being that with more applications designed for Windows, more users will want to use the operating system. If Microsoft scares off all the developers to Linux, the users will soon follow, and Microsoft's profits will plummet.

Re:huh

[MontyApollo]

They want to "upgrade" the operating system. You know like Norton and AOL.

Come on...

[Frosty Piss]

Look, Google, release your own OS already, and shut up. We know you've been working on one.

Re:Come on...

[Drew McKinney]

Well, they do have Google Desktop...

Re:Come on...

[bazorg]

And you should have seen the comments on Mac users forums when it was released for OS X. "oh it's like spotlight but not as pretty" "bah, who asked for this in the first place?", etc., etc...

in the meantime Beagle is in early stages of development and the suite Google Desktop+Firefox+Sync extension makes my life easier everyday while moving between several computers. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I'd be one happier ubuntu user if I could use GDS there.

Re:Come on...

[dcam]

Why does this come up again and again? Google has an internally tweaked OS. That is a completely different thing to a consumer OS.

I work at a small software company, with 2 full time programmers and one part time tester. Even at that size we have a custom built process and custom patching tools but we aren't going to release these. This is the same issue for Google but scaled up. If our company grew say maybe 100x I could see us rolling a customised OS with some custom code.

Re:huh

[Rakishi]

You don't understand why they are doing this from a logical perspective or from their "do no evil" perspective? Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Seems easy enough to understand although of course it is pretty evil, abusive and all that. So I guess their new motto is "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

Didn't MS also have geek cred back in the day only to lose it as they became a big company?

Re:blah blah blah

[Tuoqui]

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer. Since it is bundled with every single copy of windows since I think 95. To Joe Average user seeing a little 'e' icon on the desktop and equating that with the internet is all you need to do in order to gain an unfair advantage over other web browser companies. Since IE doesnt typically catastrophically fail (it only allows every tom, dick and harry spyware maker to put their crap on your machine) most users never see a need to change.

Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading. It's also the reason that Microsoft didnt automatically push Windows Defender onto XP machines. Even though Norton, Avast! or Kapersky is better most people will refuse to use them because they'll see the little windows defender icon and go 'cool theres my anti-virus'.

Or...

[adona1]

They could stop complaining and get back to developing web-based apps that crap over anything MS has to offer (I'm thinking search engine, image search, webmail etc). Not to go Web 2.0 on anyone, but why do they care about the desktop? No advertising dollars there (yet).

Re:Or...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yeah cause thats what consumers want... to be spammed while using applications through out the day. No thanks. Web 2.0 sucks. Please keep the corporate logo's and spam off my computer.

Re:Or...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I fucked your mother. Good enough for you fag? Go suck your dads dick you coward.

Addendum

[mushupork]

Sec 12 Para 2: "Vista startup sound must now be sound of someone getting spanked."

Google is digging their own grave here

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me turn this around.

What if Microsoft turned around and demanded that Google open up their online sites/applications so that the default search engine could be changed to Live search?

Or what if Google is setting a precedent to allow some other spyware developers to demand that Mac OS X or another operating system must have an easily extensible framework for crapware to hook itself into?

It is Microsoft's operating system and the modularity of the system should be entirely up to Microsoft to decide. If Microsoft don't want anything modular/replaceable in Windows then that is fine by me. It is time that people became responsible for their software purchasing decisions. You want to be able to install 3rd party replacements for various software components? Choose a modular operating system. You are worried about your traditional applications not working on the new operating system? Get out of vendor lockin before the problems get even worse. Choose file formats which are open and standardized.

Also, it is hardly as if Google isn't playing some of the old Microsoft tricks with getting their search engine made the default in Firefox, bundling spyware installers with other applications (which are checked ON by default), etc.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here

[daskinil]

I'm gonna sue cause I can't replace the window manager with fluxbox. Or maybe if i could just run X11 on top of the NT kernel. =P They are pretty much suing because they can't replace the search entry in your normal folders to be google search. Um,... i kinda agree with everyone that think WTF? It would be nice if every component had a nice API to replace parts. I'd like to replace the start menu for one. But i don't think i should be able to sue because i can't.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here

[hxnwix]

And let me straighten you out.

What if Google were a monopoly and therefore conceivably obligated to start sharing? Well, they fucking aren't.

Thank you, come again.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here

[giorgiofr]

Somewhat offtopic but, you know you CAN run X11 and/or fluxbox right? There is a native version for Windows and an X11-based one IIRC.

Re:Google is digging their own grave here

[daskinil]

Awesome, but does it replace the microsoft windowing system or just run on top of it? What does IIRC mean?

Re:Google is digging their own grave here

[giorgiofr]

IIRC = if I recall correctly. I seem to remember that the version of BB I tried replaced the standard windowing system completely. Have a look here http://www.bb4win.org/. There was also some LiteSTEP available for Windows that worked pretty well.

God damn it.

[sid0]

you can't turn it off

YOU CAN.

I quickly discovered that searching it automatically called up MSIE

I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS.

Re:God damn it.

[p_quarles]

I have no idea why that happens. I don't have GDS (no need for it), but I tried to set Firefox as the default and EVERYTHING passed to Firefox. Search results from the Start menu, URLs in emails, HTML files, EVERYTHING. The problems actually does seem to be GDS. I have no idea why it happens either, but it didn't do that in XP, so I don't think it was GDS's problem. Doesn't matter, though: Vista drove me to Linux, and I haven't looked back.

Re:God damn it.

[sid0]

You can. If the index is turned off, an XP-like slow, non-indexed search is done when you type something in the search box. The index is OFF, period.

What's so hard to understand? I'll repeat it: The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period. The index is OFF, period.

You want GDS to run at a low priority? Tell that to Google.

Re:God damn it.

[YU Nicks NE Way]

No. The indexing *service* is off. WDS (now read carefully) DOES NOT USE THE INDEXING SERVICE. It uses a different service, and that service cannot be turned off.

If WDS used the indexing service, you'd be completely correct. that's the problem -- it doesn't.

Re:God damn it.

[Kalriath]

Then disable the indexing service: http://4sysops.com/?p=457

IS THAT REALLY HARD? Yes, it's confusing that they renamed the search service. BOO FSCKING HOO!

Re:God damn it.

[dabraun]

It uses a different service, and that service cannot be turned off.

C:\>net stop "windows search"
The Windows Search service is stopping.
The Windows Search service was stopped successfully.

C:\>

I kid you not, it's that simple - that's what the freakin service is called. Would you people claiming you can't turn it off shut up already.

Re:huh

[__aajfby9338]

I don't get this, either. I'll openly admit to disliking Microsoft and most of their products with a passion, and I'm a happy user of various Google products and services. So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products, as long as Microsoft isn't plagiarizing other folks' stuff.

Would I personally be annoyed by their search feature if I was a Vista user? Maybe, maybe not, but they're not obligated to give me exactly what I want, just like I'm not obligated to buy their product. I happen to have switched over to using a Mac recently (I was previously a hardcore Linux zealot and I still like Linux, but I decided that OS X would fit my needs better for general-purpose use a few months ago, and so far I've been happy with that decision). OS X has its own hardwired-in search feature. I'm free to whine at Apple if I don't like it, they're free to ignore me if they want to, and I'm free to vote with my wallet if I don't like their response. That's the way I think it ought to be, and I don't see why it should be any different with Microsoft/Vista.

If Microsoft does Bad Stuff in their business practices then go after 'em, but I've never seen the logic in forcing them to change their operating system (even back in the old browser war days). I'll accept that using pricing and contracts to try to force their OEM customers to stay away from any other OS vendors may be illegal, anti-competitive and just downright mean, but I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft designing their operating system to not play well with others. I think that hurts them more than anybody else, because it makes folks like me get fed up, wipe their hard drives and install Linux instead, or even go buy Macs rather than facing the prospect of using their next OS release.

Re:huh

[laffer1]

I don't understand why this was moderated flamebait. I suppose it could have been worded differently, but there is a valid point. Some people loved Microsoft in the late 80s and early 90s. Microsoft provided the software that was an alternative to Mac OS. People who hated Apple loved it.

Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further? I don't like Microsoft's business practices, but I don't see how google is all that much better as of late.

A little more specific

[Gription]

Yes, it is pretty obvious that the little blue 'e' was an abuse of Microsoft's total control of the OS market but I always though the clear cut, slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS.

They basically said, "Sorry but you can only get support for our OS if you use our browser..." Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?

Re:A little more specific

[sid0]

why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?

It has. Vista uses a separate app for downloading updates.

Re:A little more specific

[dabraun]

slam dunk antitrust violation in that regard was that they made it impossible to use a different browser to download updates for their OS. ... Now how did that get past the DOJ and why hasn't it been nuked out of Windows since then?

It got past the DOJ because it's actually pretty reasonable. You must use our software to update our software. No, we don't support using someone else's software to make updates to our software. This is freakin common sense.

Making it damn hard to use a browser other than IE for general internet browsing is another matter, and is what the actual "slam dunk" was.

In Vista there is a app, part of the OS, that you use to get updates (and not IE). It is not pluggable, you can not replace it, and you can not use someone else's software to do it.

Re:A little more specific

[soapthgr8]

It also has to do with the fact that the update software was an ActiveX control which most other browsers don't touch with a 10-ft (~3.05m) pole. The functionality that allows the Microsoft Update website to search the computer for software is the source of the vulnerabilities that these browsers are avoiding.

Re:A little more specific

[Gription]

The way Vista is upgraded is pretty obviously the way it should have been since Win 9x. The point was that if they were going to use a browser for required support it is obviously anti competitive to demand that you use only their browser.

The only problem with the Vista upgrade scheme is that it is only a small part of an OS that is pretty much useless for most people's needs. I'm pretty certain that it will be regularly used to pipe DRM, EULAs, and other anti customer functionality bits into millions of computers.

Hey! We are talking about millions of computers being remotely infiltrated to do something other then what the owner wishes! Microsoft has created what amounts to the world's largest botnet!!!

Re:A little more specific

[r3m0t]

But only out of security concerns from Microsoft, not out of any sort of antitrust related effect.

Re:blah blah blah

[Kalriath]

Actually, in all technicality, an OS should include a web browser - without IE for Windows, how do you expect to download from the website Firefox or any other browser?

I've always thought the "browser war" thing was a bad example.

(Before you suggest "have a repository like Synaptic or Yum with all third party browsers and even IE so people have a choice" let me mention three words that'll shoot that down: InstallShield Corporation. Lawsuit)

Re:MacOSX?

[MrDanW]

Google has already released Google Desktop for the Mac (it's in beta, but this is Google...)
http://desktop.google.com/mac

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[teh_commodore]

With Google's wide array of various products/services, I seriously doubt this is going to turn them into victims.

crybaby?

[dwater]

Has this tagging thing been opened up again?
For a while there, the tags almost meant something.

Re:crybaby?

[jZnat]

It's lame tags like these which make it so the useful tags that aren't covered already by the topics (e.g., I don't think there is a PS3 topic yet, so articles about PS3 get tagged PS2 by default which doesn't make sense) don't show up anymore. :(

Re:crybaby?

[tknd]

Offtopic but, some people like it, some people don't. I don't like the tag system in any form.

I'm guessing the people that liked it like it because they feel their opinion can get expressed. But in the end it usually disolves into a poor selection of tags that are mostly opinion and give you nothing in return.

On the other hand if user input is taken away, then the tags become kinda worthless because they're too obvious. For example a headline like "sun releases zfs" will get tagged "sun" and "zfs." Well duh, that doesn't help me, I can read the headline and figure that out.

So the tag system is pointless either way. The tags should be kept hidden and not displayed. They should only be used to categorize things which would help searches. But one rarely searches slashdot so I think the tags here will always have very little purpose.

Re:crybaby?

[dwater]

Hrm, yes, interesting.

I wonder what their conceiver had in mind.

I admit I had thought of them more for searching (I have searched /., but not often), and they wer just displayed during a beta period or something.

If that isn't their purpose, then I guess the less 'formal' ones are quite valid...and perhaps more useful too.

Googles app is just crapware

[Anonymous Coward]

I just treat googles toolbars/desktop search the same as any other crapware/adware/spyware when i find it on a customers machine and remove it, 99.9% of ordinary users have no idea it was installed except that their system runs like crap due to the hundreds of apps that insist on adding themselves to HKLM run/ startup
if they didnt bundle it in things like Adobe Acrobat (with the install boxes already ticked on the installer) and the like i would probably treat it differently but as they use the same tactics as many of the crapware suppliers they get treated like one after all you lie with dogs your gonna get fleas
iam still suprised commerical Spyware removers dont flag it, why anyone in their right mind let an advertising company install anything on their machine is beyond me

Re:huh

[Harmonious Botch]

So it's safe to say that I have a pro-Google/anti-Microsoft bias in general. Still, I don't see why Google or anybody else should have much if any say in the features that Microsoft is allowed to put in their products... How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[Grishnakh]

Why is everyone calling Google cry-babies? Does no one remember history?

You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.

Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here. Anti-trust wasn't even a factor in the Stacker case.

MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.

Chevy vs ford

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Wish it was easy to take a chevy 350 motor and dump it into a ford pinto.

Maybe I should piss moan and whine until ford retrofits any new vehicle they make to allow whatever engine I want to put into it...

Re:Chevy vs ford

[the_Bionic_lemming]

well, it's nowhere as near difficult to install google as you are trying to make it be but hey - I understand your need to knee jerk and avoid the point.

Re:huh

[Zak3056]

How about the reverse: if a google page had a one-click option to modify vista so that Google was the preferred search engine?

Err... don't they? ie6 (I think) and ie7 (for sure) have a box in the top right corner when you visit the google home page that says "Click here to install the google toolbar" which will also make Google the default search provider.

Crybaby!

[gcnaddict]

Stop crying about the tags.

Re:huh

[rwven]

While I agree with your sentiment, I do have a problem with grown-up software companies walking around acting whiny spoiled children. As much as Microsoft may deserve a "jab in the heart" on some level, Google needs to get over their emotion driven "issues" and move on to more, truly important, things.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

At the same time... just because a feature exists out there, doesnt mean microsoft should be barred from copying it. We wouldnt have GUI os's if that were the case.

Re:the crybaby tag

[dwater]

yeah, for a while there, the tags actually were useful.

have they opened them up to abuse again?

Re:blah blah blah

[Frosty Piss]

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Sure, but we can't have it both ways, bitch that Microsoft OS doesn't even include a decent file search (what a bunch of incompetents, it must be all the free Starbucks they drink), and then bitch that they do.

What colour is the sky on your home planet?

[baomike]

eom

So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[sid0]

First: that MS indexing can't be turned off in Vista.

Debunked. At least 3 ways to do so.

Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)

No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.

Now: that Vista search gets a performance boost.

Hereby debunked. Vista search runs at a low priority -- both CPU and I/O. So if GDS doesn't use low priority, GDS will get a performance boost compared to MS indexing.

Next?

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[Darkforge]

Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)

No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.

Internet Explorer 7 already supports using Google as the search engine for its search box; it's not so weird to think that regular Explorer would allow you to swap in other search engines as well. More to the point, it's not too much to expect for MS to make it an option.

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[Real1tyCzech]

Yes, of course. MS should allow us, no *must* allow us to modularly swap out any portion of it's OS for that of a competing product, right?

I mean, why stop at indexing? Why not force them to let us swap out the shell? Or the filesystem? Or the Kernel, FFS??

Sorry. Search is part of the filesystem. Any modern OS that does not allow you to quickly and easily search your files is seriously lacking.

If Google doesn't want to use Microsoft's indexing service, great. Their problem, not Microsoft's.

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[sid0]

With IE (or Firefox, or any web browser), the work is trivial. All the browser has to do is to form an HTTP request and send it. The result page can be highlighted with the keywords if the browser supports it (Maxthon, and I presume an extension to Firefox, do the job).

The work with desktop search is non-trivial, however. The options aren't the same, the results aren't presented in the same way. GDS uses a web interface, MS search uses an Explorer interface. Sure, it *can* possibly be done, but I can't see any justification for bringing anti-trust into this -- or even why it *should* be done. It would involve a hell of a lot of work, for one.

Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable, another saying that the audio stack should be replaceable, and finally a request for the entire kernel to be replaceable. All of these *can*, very theoretically, be done.

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[KlomDark]

> Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable

Hey, I think you're on to something there! Wouldn't that be cool if we wouldn't have to be forced to use Microsoft's TCP/IP stack? We could replace it with the BSD TCP/IP stack! Oh, wait...

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[sid0]

Windows Vista has the BSD stack!... oh wait, it doesn't.

Re:So, the "main complaint" keeps changing

[SnowZero]

All of these *can*, very theoretically, be done. Actually, it's not merely theoretical, because Debian can do that right now. It's amazing how far you can get with a good modular design.

read lamlaw

[baomike]

Read this and come back:
http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articl eId=264

Re:huh

[codename.matrix]

Google simply wants to be able to replace the desktop search with the google equivalent. The idea is to give the user a choice which desktop search he wants to use - this doesn't mean just MS or Google but also others like Yahoo would benefit from this. AFAIK the indexing of vista can be disabled but there is currently no way to replace the feature with another application. I personally like the way it is working right now. It's like the old story with the browser and the media player. I wonder why Microsoft doesn't make more of these features as seperate applications that integrate into the system using public apis. It would give them a lot less trouble with the competition and anti-trust battles and it would be easier for them to enhance such features because they aren't integrated so deeply into the system. well, just my 2 cents.

Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[twitter]

ILuxRamen would taunt Google with obviously false blather.

If you think your product is better, don't complain that something like it comes with Vista cuz it won't matter.

No one can really be oblivious to the actual problem here: M$ has sabotaged yet another competitor on "their" OS. It does not matter how good your program is when you try to port it to Winblows and M$ decides they want your "market". Remember DRDOS, Lotus, Word Perfect, Netscape and non M$ antivirus programs? All of them were far better than the M$ junk that eventually triumphed due to sabotage and vendor manipulation. Their demise has been meticulously documented in several anti-trust trials. This is no longer a matter of partisan bickering or fanboy ranting, it's court proven fact.

Protecting real competition is what antiturst is all about. The judgement and findings of fact against M$ were supposed to take care of these problems but did not because they left M$ intact. Their attack on Google, iPod anti-virus makers and even Wikipedia is more of the same. All of these other companies are just as legitimate and important as M$ and all of them are going to be slaughtered if things go as they did before. That's people who lose their jobs so that M$ can rack up more monopoly rent. Government action has failed miserably.

Fortunately, the market is correcting itself. People are avoiding Vista even though that means using ancient software on aging hardware. Dell is still selling XP, despite M$'s wishes, because people just don't want Vista. It's hurt hardware sales and everyone who trusted the usual business predictions are feeling the burn. Businesses and government offices continue to look for escape and they are finding it in Mac and free software that runs their existing equipment. With vendors like Dell selling free software, the dam has burst on M$. There's a reliable hardware path out of the mess. People who want what competition really has to offer are going to steer clear of M$ for the forseeable future.

All M$ can do is advertise, but that's not working like it used to. They can't polish the Vista turd. After six years, they can't produce much better, so it's all downhill from here. Everyone knows it too. Bye Bye M$.

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[dedazo]

This is no longer a matter of partisan bickering or fanboy ranting, it's court proven fact.

It doesn't really matter how you like to paint it, or how many infantile dollar signs you use. What Microsoft did and what they are doing can in fact be two very different things - and in this case they are. The search function in Vista is superb (not even my opinion, look it up) and way beyond what Google Desktop Search does. On XP GDS was the bomb, because XP search was laughable. But now that Microsoft has actually delivered a working feature on their own OS that ouperforms the competition, Google is scared to death. So, they have to go whine to the DoJ and count on the general lets-bash-M$ gravy train to see if they can pull it off. Judging by the comments I've seen elsewhere, Google is not winning any points on this one, nor are they seen as the victim. The fact is that the Vista search is simply better, and that has nothing to do with what Microsoft does or doesn't do, it's Google's own incompetence and lack of foresight that caused them to stagnate and fail to compete with something that was announced effin' five years ago at least.

Try to grow up. This psychotic hatred of yours towards Microsoft is starting to warp your perception of reality.

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[Macthorpe]

Did you honestly forget this whole thing where you made exactly this point, and after 5 posts of arguing you still couldn't come up with a coherent fact or reason to support what you said?

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[twitter]

Did you honestly forget this whole thing where you made exactly this point,

No, and I'm still willing to project M$'s behavior towards DRDOS, Lotus, Word Perfect, Palm, Netscape, anti-virus makers and others right into the Google present. There's a clear pattern of behavior there that makes Google's claim all the more believable. Google has competent programmers who know the difference between intentional sabotage and accident, as did each of those other companies. Most of them came forth in anti-trust cases, and M$'s own internal email backed them up.

As usual, M$ has amped up the blame for the victim through Astroturfers like you, who can offer nothing but insults as a reason to think M$ has changed. This whole thread is riddled with highly moderated "Google is Evil" posts and other nonsense proclaiming M$'s "right to improve their platform" as if Google had done anything wrong or impeding a competitor's product by sabotaging the end user's computer could help anyone. M$'s behavior was and is premeditated and ultimately harms the user. Their current blame game and refusal to act on behalf of the user is documented by Ars:

We inspected Microsoft's joint filing and found that Microsoft is not going to allow a complete override of the default search service in all Explorer windows, and that the company also rejects Google's concerns about performance.

At the end of the day, Windoze users are the losers. They get a sabotaged platform that used to have cool programs but is now deserted. It's amazing that anyone still wastes their time programming for Windoze. M$ has demonstrated time and time again that they will steal any profitable market by sabotaging the competition. Who wants to use a platform like that? It entirely negates vendor and hardware advantages M$ still enjoys because you never know when your favorite toy is going to be the next M$ victim that sends your computer into time wasting loops.

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[dedazo]

behavior towards DRDOS, Lotus, Word Perfect, Palm, Netscape, anti-virus makers

What "behavior" is that again? Let's see:

• DR-DOS - Easily debunked, again and again.
• Lotus - Urban legend
• Word Perfect - Anyone with half a brain knows WP killed itself by failing to ship an actual working GUI version of their word processor. Please provide examples of Microsoft doing something untoward or illegal in this case, please
• Palm - Huh? You've claimed in the past that Microsoft "sued" Palm or something like that. Care to actually spell out what the problem is with Palm?
• Netscape - Let's not go through that again
• Anti-virus makers - ROFL, you call them snake oil vendors and bitch at Microsoft because "Windoze" is insecure, but when "M$" actually secures Windows then you're shedding tears for them?

There are other, actual examples of Microsoft behaving badly. You might want to switch to those instead. They'll probably work better than memes, urban legends and FUD.

They get a sabotaged platform that used to have cool programs but is now deserted

Do you figure if you keep repeating these stupidities you'll somehow make them come true?

Re:Windoze is the thing to avoid.

[Macthorpe]

Astroturfers like you, who can offer nothing but insults followed by

Windoze users are the losers Add a few points already made and debunked in the thread I linked to , and you have another Twitter classic.

Re:huh

[hxnwix]

Microsoft agreed to make changes. Why push it further? Because whenever Microsoft is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they offer to "punish" themselves by taking some more cookies.

Re:huh

[hxnwix]

Logically they are attempting to further their own product by attacking a competing product using abuse of the legal system. Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly. Google is calling them on it. Would you care to elaborate on what aspect of this is abuse?

I'm sorry, but it looks like we're going to have to reject your biased characterization unless you can come up with, you know, a logical argument.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is scared shitless of Vista's search capabilities, and here's why:

Vista Search (which is about 100 times better than Google's Desktop Search) is only one step away from searching ON THE INTERNET, just as it searches on the desktop now.

If Microsoft gets users used to Vista Search, and then makes it easy for people to use that same GUI to search the internet, Google is suddenly out of business overnight.

Google's popularity right now is based largely on momentum and the "fad" of using its name as a verb. Yahoo's search, for example, is pretty damn near as good as Google's. Since Google's entire business model of search supremecy relies on user laziness and momentum (like most monopolies that aren't enforced by governments like utilities, etc) then their ultimate worry is that Microsoft will incorporate search directly into the OS which will be the ultimate "lazy" option for users.

Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar? Why do you think Google pays dell 5 dollars for each install of Google toolbar that ships with all Dell computers? Because Google knows that the way to keep their search monopoly is to make it so the user doesn't even HAVE to make a choice of search engine- it will be there in their face when they update Acrobat or buy a new Dell or download Firefox.

But if Microsoft can make it even EASIER for people not to even need a concept of a third party search engine, then Google is finished.

This is why Google will fight this battle to the very end- they will spend every penny in their coffers to try and stop microsoft from getting users to stop thinking of search as a "site you go to" rather than something that is just built into the OS. I mean literally- Google has absolutely nothing to lose by spending every penny they have to fight this- because if they lose, then the company might as well fold up shop and go home.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[suv4x4]

"MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright"

Wow, that'd be pretty bold of Microsoft, if it were true. How do you know he is right? But of course! He said "Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either"! He must be right. Let's mod him up!

Of course, actually Microsoft didn't include Stacker "itself", they licensed and included Vertisoft's DoubleDisk, a product competing with Stacker.

Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al

No, they sued for *patent* infringement on the compression algorithm. I say, however: copyright infringement, patent infringement, it's all the same, who'd notice, right. Microsoft was ordered to remove DoubleDisk, and later on they created DriveSpace, which used different compression method.

I saw, bravo, about contributing to the Microsoft FUD some more. We ought to fight them using any means at all: they're EVIL, right.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[drsmithy]

You kids are probably too young to remember Stacker, but basically it was a way of compressing files to increase harddrive space by compressing on-the-fly. They were doing great until Microsoft decided to include a similar product in DOS, and then they were fucked. Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.

Stac was killed by plummeting storage prices, incredibly fast drive size growth and fragile, easily-catastrophically-broken software. Exactly the same reasons that people stopped using MS-DOS's and DR-DOS's equivalents. Who in their right mind would roll the corruption dice with Stacker (or Double/DriveSpace or SuperStor) when disks were suddenly dirt cheap ?

I *do* remember Stacker. I bought it - cost significantly more than DOS itself from memory (although still cheaper than buying more hard disk space in about 1991). I've even got one of their 16-bit ISA "compression coprocessor" cards at home somewhere.

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[drsmithy]

Obviously, you don't remember your history that well, either, because this case was much worse than you say here.

The irony...

MS didn't include a product similar to Stacker in DOS. MS included Stacker itself: they actually copied Stac's code outright. Stac of course sued for copyright infringement et al, and MS finally lost the court case, but it was too late for Stac, which went under. The judgment probably got split up amongst the shareholders, but in the end the company died, and MS had succeeded in putting a perceived competitor out of business as they intended, though it came at a small (to MS) monetary cost.

In actual fact, Microsoft v Stac was a patent case and had zero to do with copyright. Software patents are bad, remember, so Stac *should* have lost the case.

Also, as I said elsewhere, what killed Stacker (along with the 3 or 4 other identical programs that were on the market at the time) was plummeting hard disk prices, massive disk growth and a fundamentally fragile-and-prone-to-catastrophic-data-loss application design. Unfortunately for Stac, their buggy whips were no longer a compelling product in the days of the horseless carriage.

This is why Microsoft's OSes suck

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Any time they try to do something good, the government steps in and says it's anti-competitive. Meanwhile, Apple and Linux implement similar features and brag about how Windows doesn't have them.

I'm not trying to take sides in the OS wars, but I'm really getting sick of the government bullying Microsoft. If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's the government bullying someone, regardless of who they are.

Re:This is why Microsoft's OSes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Not taking sides in the OS wars ? Damn, Cyrus, but there's something MUCH more disturbing in your post:
  "If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's the government bullying someone, regardless of who they are."

I'm stunned ... "the government", my dear boy is YOUR PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE to curtail the psychopathic behaviour of megacorporations that without law (implemented by government) and justice (implemented by government) and effective policing and watchdogging (implemented by government) would fuck over you and your grandma in a blink of an eye.

You seem to have a problem with pronouns too. "who" does not apply to a company, it applies to PEOPLE.

My own retort: If there's anything worse than a company bullying someone, it's an ignorant prat astroturfing for corporate personhood at the expense of the rest of us.

Me, I'm happy when the government jumps all over the criminal, monopolistic, anti-competitive (and therefore anti-democratic) fukkers who are subsidised by our tax dollars to build infrastructure and empires so they can overcharge us and funnel our ever-shrinking disposable income toward the moneyed elite.
 
Maybe I had too much coffee this morning ...

Re:This is why Microsoft's OSes suck

[vfrex]

Ok, here's my problem with that. Microsoft was convicted of monopolizing the OS market, right? Despite the fact that the government has handcuffed them to some degree, you have to understand what Microsoft's position is. They did a good job of making and pushing windows at the right time. PC's were getting ready to explode, and they beat Apple in the business. Their OS monopoly has created an environment that is very difficult for competitors to survive in. In their monopoly days, they used the monopoly to win mindshare and standards. So even if the government restricts them when it comes to tangible software issues, Microsoft is continuing to make tens of billions of dollars in profits off of the monopoly. Even if Microsoft isn't officially a monopoly anymore, the market still acts as if it is. I appreciate that Microsoft did the right thing in the right place at the right time. They "deserve" to reap profits for that. That's how business works. But that was in the late 80's/early 90's. That they are STILL reaping those profits today fueled by their impressions on the industry made 20 years ago is a good sign that the government shouldn't let Microsoft roam free.

Re:huh

[bl8n8r]

> "Do no evil unless it gives us money."

I think you're jumping the gun here. Microsoft is like a fool with a rope; Give 'em enough, and next thing you know they want to be Cowboy Neal. Microsoft has enough money to buy just about any legal outcome they want - and don't fool yourself, they do. Google knows this and is nipping the problem in the bud right now. If they don't, before you know it, you won't even be able to use Google with Vista. Clippy will pop up and direct you to Vista Search instead (or some other such idiotic nonsense that the population seems to lap up). Being that Baldy is going to "Fucking kill Google"* I would be handling this with a wary eye as well. Google is playing it smart.

[*] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chuc king/

Re:huh

[h2_plus_O]

Microsoft is violating a black letter agreement - blatantly

Are they? The DOJ seems satisfied with their remedy. From tfa:

The DOJ and all 17 state attorneys general agreed with Microsoft's proposal. "Plaintiffs are collectively satisfied that this agreement will resolve any issues the complaint may raise under the Final Judgments, provided that Microsoft implements it as promised," according to the joint filing.

Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone?

[grapeape]

something in the news that Google is doing that is just plain stupid, ethically questionable or outright wrong. From the jacked up toolbar installs, recent privacy concerns, the bush league promotional attempts at EBay's conference, to whining about MS features that were part of the OS's plans since day one. How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin? Surprise Google wants your desktop, they want your eyeballs, they want to pummel you with ads, they want to control your online experience, and they want to control your email and documents. Google may have started years ago with the best of intentions but as it went public it had to answer to shareholders which are for the most part greedy bastards by nature if they care about their money. I like Google, I even liked the toolbar until they kept bloating it with crap, bundled software and "customer experience" features but lately things have changed. In the long term, I think there is more to fear from Google than there is from Microsoft. Yep MS wants you to buy stuff, but Google wants to give it away in the hopes of getting so engrained that they control every aspect of your online life and when it gets to that point its already to late. The worst part is they seem to be willing to use any tactic available to get there.

I sincerely hope it's just the tinfoil hat in me that's talking but I do worry that one day Google will be synonymous with Tyrell or Skynet only this time it will be real.

Re:Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone?

[EraserMouseMan]

How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin?

It has worn thin. We've wised up. We now realize what each and every person is to Google. People and their personal information is nothing more than a way for Google to make money.

Google uses you. Not the other way around.

Re:Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone?

[tknd]

Those days have been gone for quite a while. The only time google wasn't really evil was when their search actually only returned results. Then came in the bright idea of adding advertisements to it. It was only downhill from there.

In fact their entire business model is evil by design: provide useful service people need, bloat it with ads, collect information and statistics on user, show more ads, etc. The entire scheme is setup to convert your time using their service into advertising opportunities. Everyday the text advertisements are getting worse than the images. At least with images it was obvious that it was an advertisement. With the text ads and ads that are slightly related to the content, they're starting to blend too well with the rest of the page that accidental clicks are more likely.

Re:Are the Do No Evil days dead and gone?

[Maondas]

Actually google started its path towards the dark side when it went public. The impossible pressure of MEETING EARNINGS twists every company. This is why Google has been misbehaving; they need to keep growing market share at any cost.

Vanquish?

[smittyoneeach]

Google will modify its motto to "Do no evil, but let a little justice slip out occasionally" and keep MicroSoft alive.
Why? Because to vanquish would be merciful, and Redmond deserves to wallow in the wreckage of its APIs for as long as possible.

Re:the crybaby tag

[gcnaddict]

No, it's just that high-karma tags tend to stick because the editors approve them.

How would you explain this?

[sid0]

So, how would you explain that on this computer, the indexing service is disabled, and there is no index AT ALL? Anywhere? How would you explain that when I type in a couple of letters into the search box in Explorer, it actually searches the directories instead of the index, and tells me that indexing is off, and to turn on the index for faster searches?

Re:Does no one remember Stacker???

[Frankie70]

Victims of Microsoft's "Oh, sorry about including a feature that fucks up your business" mentality.


What about Apple & Konfabulator?

Re:huh

[enrevanche]

Why push it further? Are you kidding, They should keep pushing it. Each time Microsoft comes up with a remedy, it is so half-assed that it is usually no better than before. They will make it annoying as they can get away with to use any competitor's product. This is exactly what is wrong with a monopolistic business. Their business model has nothing to do with competing for a customer by providing a better product. They use their product to control and limit because most customers do not have another practical choice.

Re:huh

[alisson]

But on another level, microsoft should be kept in check. Why should their patent violations go unnoticed, when they're such patent-hounds. I don't mind following the rules, as long as you have to as well :)

Re:blah blah blah

[Londovir]

I'm blowing moderator points to be able to respond to this, but why not?

What I don't understand, and of course IANAL so I shouldn't understand this, is where do we draw the line on the anti-monopoly power plays? Look, I can buy the argument that Microsoft went monopolistic all over the Internet Explorer saga. You are completely and entirely correct. The entire thrust of the case, as I understood it at the time, was that Microsoft was abusing it's basis as an operating system by bundling in software, not required in an operating system, so that it could grow market presence.

So, Microsoft puts IE into Windows, which isn't technically required for an operating system (despite Microsoft's attempts to claim it needed IE for it's Explorer subsystem, which was nicely debunked by experts) in order to snare the entire browser market. I read you on that one. I'll even grant your reasoning regarding Windows Defender, since I again don't think that's a core component of an OS.

But I draw the line with this search functionality. In my mind, being able to search your "desktop" (ie, the entire hard drive) for a file or document is something I expect, if not demand, in an operating system. If the filesystem doesn't support indexing and helping me to find a file based on a variety of criteria, I'm looking elsewhere. I know, technically, that searching is also not required for an OS, but the distinction is getting finer and finer. To me, Google is just being sour-grapes about this one. If they can prove Microsoft stole their code, abused their copyright, etc, I agree with them. If they can somehow prove Microsoft is deliberately sabotaging competing searches in the source code so they run abnormally slower compared to the native search, I would probably still side with Google (but my resolve gets much thinner).

But just because they are trying to provide a product that performs the same task as something which likely should be a part of the OS doesn't give them (in my mind) the license to demand Microsoft make changes. Why should Microsoft be forced to completely expose (or disable) their own, internal search subsystem in the OS? If you would rather use Google's search, download the blasted thing and "Just say no" to Microsoft's box on the Start Menu. (The irony, of course, is I recall tons of complaints/flamewars on /. in the past over how OS X was so superior for Spotlight than Windows, and then complaints of how Microsoft "ripped off" Spotlight, etc.)

I just don't see how this is the same as Microsoft defaulting the email program to Outlook Express, or the browser to Internet Explorer. Those are separate programs that aren't related to the OS itself, and Microsoft pushed it past the limit by bundling that sort of software and promoting it within Windows. Searching for files, though, should be something that is integral to the OS's file system - and competitors should be welcome to compete, but not get special privileges for doing so.

Wouldn't this be similar to someone like Symantec threatening Microsoft with litigation because Symantec provides a file system defragmenter (in SystemWorks), and Microsoft has a button in Explorer that will start Microsoft's own built-in defragmenter? Maybe Symantec is upset that there's no way for the user to disable Microsoft's, or to make Windows use Symantec's as the default. If Google can do it - so can Symantec. And so goes the contrapositive, also.

Speaking of which, when should we be hearing Google going after Apple for Spotlight? Oh wait - Spotlight has an API that allows anyone to write software to interface with the underlying OS searching capabilities. Which brings me to my question: Would that access (as unlikely as it might be in forthcoming) to Vista searching be enough to satsify Google? If it isn't, than Google's motivations are clearly suspect.

Londovir

Re:huh

[Herby Sagues]

What patent violations are you talking about?

Re:blah blah blah

[AnyoneEB]

Personally, I always use FTP to download Windows Firefox builds.

But how many 'features' were stripped out?

[r_jensen11]

If you look at the original lists of what Vista was supposed to come shipped with and compare that list to what it was actually shipped with, I think you'll see how worthless 'day 1' development features are. One of the major motivators to switch to Vista was their new file system, but as it is we're stuck with NTFS for Windows and a plethora for *NIX.

Re:But how many 'features' were stripped out?

[drsmithy]

One of the major motivators to switch to Vista was their new file system, but as it is we're stuck with NTFS for Windows and a plethora for *NIX.

No, it wasn't. WinFS is not - and never was - a filesystem.

Re:huh

[speaker of the truth]

It boils down to Microsoft is a monopoly and illegally abused its monopoly. It now has to operate under different rules. Sure it sucks, but that's what they get for breaking the law. Google is simply trying to force Microsoft to operate under the special rules.

Re:blah blah blah

[Kalriath]

Command Prompt FTP? Although that's certainly an option, I really don't think that would fly with Microsoft's majority target marget... If you meant Windows Explorer FTP, that's provided by IE so I wouldn't use that as an example.

reactionary MS

[fermion]

I am ever so slightly on Google side of this, even though I think installing google is a bad idea, simply because this is another case of MS not providing basic services.

On Apple, the google toolbar is nothing more than a security and privacy risk, with little extra value. Pop up blocking, ad blocking, search engine choice, system search, are all available on the standard browsers. This situation was only improved when MS let IE lapse and Safari took over the default Mac browser.

OTOH, MS left basic functionality out of IE to monotize customers by sending everything through MSN, and making sure that all ads are shown. This left the gates open for the yahoo toolbar, the google toolbar, which simply modified IE to customers needs, in exchange for information.

The trouble is they still want to produce products that tie customers to MS, not through superior solutions, but embedded solutions. Just like IE, where after many years MS reluctantly added features, they have finally added search capability to the OS, but in standard form they cut everyone else out. Is the MS solution superior? Probably. But couldn't they have provided the solution years ago when customers needed it, rather than now simply as a method to cut out those that provided past service?

Re:reactionary MS

[Ravnen]

Just like IE, where after many years MS reluctantly added features, they have finally added search capability to the OS, but in standard form they cut everyone else out. Is the MS solution superior? Probably. But couldn't they have provided the solution years ago when customers needed it, rather than now simply as a method to cut out those that provided past service?

Windows has had searching for years: a content indexing service was released in 1996, and has been standard since Windows 2000. The problem is there was never a good client interface to it. Microsoft were also discussing improved indexing/searching functionality for Longhorn/Vista, initially based on WinFS, long before Google Desktop existed. Microsoft can certainly be faulted for taking too long to make thier indexing/searching facility easy to use, but it's an idea they were discussing long before Google (or Apple), and had even implemented first, albeit in a clumsy and difficult-to-use way.

Re:blah blah blah

[DECS]

One could also say having a browser is a "demanded feature" of an OS. What was wrong about MS tying IE with Windows?

In addition to leveraging its monopoly position on 98% of the world's PCs to instantly create overwhelming market share for IE almost instantly in 1997, MS also added proprietary extensions to IE to distort the market of the web itself. That allowed MS to kill Netscape's revenue from servers. IE didn't compete with Netscape as a product until Netscape itself began to fail with the fiasco of Communicator 4. IE 1-3 were junk. IE 4-6 were better than what Netscape offered only because the company had been vanquished and was no longer offering anything.

Google faces the same impossible leverage. While MS can "compete" against Google desktop or browser tools, it can't compete in web search and marketing. So it is using its monopoly desktop position to roll out integrated search that can't be disabled or replaced by third party vendors. Once MS establishes market share on the basis of disposable PCs being replaced, and not consumer choice, it can then start directing all web search to its own servers exclusively.

Google currently has to fund Mozilla's Firefox to the tune of about $50 million a year to maintain an alternative browser. That reminds one of the fact that the only competition to Windows on the desktop PC is Linux, which is free. Microsoft has still managed to prevent OEMS from bundling it.

So anyone who thinks that MS' monopoly isn't in place or is no longer being abused is delusional:

- There is no free market in PC desktop OSs (Apple could not sign up OEMs, and even the free Linux struggles to gain adoption)
- There is no free market in desktop application suites (Office is rivaled mainly by free OpenOffice)
- There is hardly a free market in web browsers (the only option is the free, DIY Firefox)

Do we want to further restrict the market in online web search and offer Microsoft additional exclusive power over a market where there is now choice?

What's next, will we make all peripherals only something one can buy from Microsoft? How about games? What other markets would people prefer to hand over to Microsoft?

The problem is, when markets are handed to MS, they become entangled in proprietary tetherings to Windows and innovation rapidly stops. Once MS marginalized Netscape, it quit its own development of IE, and another major version wasn't shipped until *five years* later, and only then because Firefox had begun eating back some market share.

The problem with Windows enthusiasts is they they do not understand what is going on, they don't grasp what has happened, they fail to consider the consequences of further abuse. They are very much the same as the ~25% of Americans who support a rudderless war with a blank check, a president who had installed the beginnings of a fascist, terrorizing police state, and the beginnings of a pseudo-christian theocracy ruled by a clergy of corporate board members.

So far, so good! Let's see more of the same cause it's working so well. Don't consider the alternatives! Stay the course.

These people make my head explode.

-

Safari on Windows? Apple and the Origins of the Web
One of the surprises unveiled in the WWDC keynote was the beta release of Safari 3.0 for both Mac OS X Tiger and Windows XP and Vista. While it was known that a new version of Safari would appear in Mac OS X Leopard in October, getting a beta now for today's Tiger was news. The release of Safari for Windows PCs went even further, raising the question of why Apple would port its browser to a platform that perhaps has too many already.

Apple in the Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer
Apple's surprise delivery of the Safari web browser for Windows at WWDC was described by seve

Re:blah blah blah

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You're right. F*ck M$ for bundling IE. I use their bundled FTP client...

I'm not pro-M$, I'm anti-hypocrite.

Re:huh

[hxnwix]

Hello? Why was the proposal necessary?

Due to violations of the settlement.

Battle of the evil titans, part 73

[swordgeek]

Once again, we have a battle of the titans. Huge monolithic company against huge monolithic company. All altruism aside, the only goal is who can squeeze more out of the customer at the end of the day.

The one thing I've found fascinating about all of these battles is that for about 15 years now, Microsoft has been one of the titans. Even when they lose, they don't die, which makes me think that damage control is as good as a win, as far as MS is concerned.

There is no difference, you and I....

[AP2k]

I am someone appauled that some of you still dont get it. Google's bitching to Redmond is the exact same thing as if they went to Torvalds say "We want in or we cry to Mommy". If you code your own OS, but by George you better not have an integrated file search program or you might find Google knocking down your door. Are YOU obligated to provide Google anything? Of course you are not, and neither should Microsoft.

Google capitalized on some areas where Microsoft's offerings were lackluster or nonexistent. Thats cool.
Now the gravy train has run out and Google shouldnt have a case. Its offerings are not as great as Microsoft's and Microsoft should not be forced into supporting it. As long as they dont break patent laws, let them do whatever the hell they want since it is legally their code.

For the record I would love to see each and every Windows OS replaced with Linux.

Re:huh

[__aajfby9338]

I won't complain too loudly when one of my least favorite companies gets kicked in the corporate nuts a bit, but I don't get the rationale behind some of the different rules that they need to operate under.

I get that they're evil monopolistic bastages and have earned restrictions and punishments because of their business practices, but some of the "feature" restrictions (i.e., regarding Internet Exploder and this search feature) have never quite made sense to me. Maybe that's just because I don't have a deep enough understanding of the circumstances of their evil monopolistic bastagism, and probably never will because I don't like spending a lot of time reading or thinking about their stuff. Their efforts to not be interoperable annoy me and induce me to spend my money elsewhere when I have the option, but I've never felt that those specific anti-social behaviors were particularly unethical. I figure that Exploder and the like can fail on its own merits, and I'll just happily use Firefox or whatever other browser I feel like using. Or go buy a different OS if I don't like theirs, with the assistance of the legal spanking that makes it harder for them to keep me from doing that.

Yeah, I'm nit-picking here... I agree that they've earned some punishment, but I'm just quibbling about some specific actions and consequences which make me scratch my head, amongst all of their other clearly wrong behavior and well-earned punishment.

Re:blah blah blah

[drsmithy]

In addition to leveraging its monopoly position on 98% of the world's PCs to instantly create overwhelming market share for IE almost instantly in 1997, [...]

Except that's not what *actually* happened.

The first version of IE to really start taking marketshare off Navigator, was IE4. At the time, IE4 was only available via download (or through your ISP, magazine covers, etc - the point being it wasn't included in Windows).

IE4 surpassed Navigator in marketshare some time in 1999. *Long* before anything close to a majority of end users had changed to Windows 98.

There was no "manufacturered" demand for IE via the "monopoly position". The demand was generated by the market, because IE4 was better than Navigator (3 at the time, but also 4 when it came out). When you look at the actual patterns of IE takeup, this is blatantly obvious, because the version of IE that was destroying Navigator in the marketplace was doing so in a way that could not be related to its integration into Windows.

[...] MS also added proprietary extensions to IE to distort the market of the web itself. That allowed MS to kill Netscape's revenue from servers.

In actual fact, this was a tactic Netscape was using to lock-in their Navigator client to proprietry extensions of their server product. Microsoft's extensions were all client-side and, at the time, this was considered completely normal in the fast-paced world of browser development.

IE didn't compete with Netscape as a product until Netscape itself began to fail with the fiasco of Communicator 4. IE 1-3 were junk. IE 4-6 were better than what Netscape offered only because the company had been vanquished and was no longer offering anything.

Utter tripe. IE3 was a quite capable alternative to Navigator 3, although it was never really popular due to Navigator's inertia. When IE4 was released in 1997, Navigator dominated the browser market with something like 80% - 90% marketshare. IE4, being at the time vastly superior to Navigator, started taking marketshare off it - *long* before Windows 98 was ever released.

Netscape was in a commanding position when IE4 was released. They were driving the industry. Then, instead of making a better product (resulting in the disaster that was Navigator 4) they chose to expend money and effort playing stupid legal games.

Microsoft didn't _need_ to "kill" Netscape - Netscape did a perfectly good job of committing suicide.

Google faces the same impossible leverage.

Yes, Google does face the same situation. They are market leaders whose product has essentially been unmatched, now having to go up against an alternative that is, by all reports, much better. No wonder they're running to the Government for help.

While MS can "compete" against Google desktop or browser tools, it can't compete in web search and marketing. So it is using its monopoly desktop position to roll out integrated search that can't be disabled or replaced by third party vendors. Once MS establishes market share on the basis of disposable PCs being replaced, and not consumer choice, it can then start directing all web search to its own servers exclusively.

More tripe.

Google currently has to fund Mozilla's Firefox to the tune of about $50 million a year to maintain an alternative browser. That reminds one of the fact that the only competition to Windows on the desktop PC is Linux, which is free. Microsoft has still managed to prevent OEMS from bundling it.

Microsoft don't "prevent" OEMs from bundling Linux, they don't bundle it because hardly anyone is interested in buying it.

There is no free market in PC desktop OSs (Apple could not sign up OEMs, and even the free Linux struggles to gain adoption)

Heh, now that's comedy. Blaming Apple single-sourcing MacOS X hardware on Microsoft.

There is no free market in desktop application suites (Office is rivaled mainly by free OpenOffice)

Re:huh

[bladesjester]

Right. Because Google has patented desktop search(?), and if they have, Microsoft itself can provide prior art because they've had a search feature since at least Windows 95.

Sorry. Not buying that one. Try again.

Re:huh

[ClosedSource]

God. More imaginary special rules for monopolies. It's seems like every time somebody complains about a company doing the same thing as MS, another rule is mysteriously formed. Please provide a link to those special rules.

Re:blah blah blah

[ClosedSource]

"Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors.

Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer"

Technically, the illegal tying charge was lost by the government on appeal.

Read this

[kasin99]

Read this and come back: http://planetlinux.no-ip.org/

Re:blah blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't bundle a browser (which are ubiquitious), why should they be allowed to bundle an FTP client (which are less often used), for that matter why should the be allowed to bundle a file manager (even if it's little more than a file dialogue), or why should they be allowed to bundle notepad which is effectively isn't anything more than a text dialogue?

All the assholes pinning wistfully for the days of Netscrape which never beat out the government project that spawned it (Mosaic. And for that matter IE didn't until well after Mosaic closed up shop.) they've never read a computer structure and organization book. Not one. Not one chapter. Not even the forward.

As for why Microsoft should use 53kr17 APIs, they need to provide 2 levels of functionality. A reliable abstracted API which people can use, and can be resonably assured of pretty robust backwards compatability. And a lower level that does the real work, including supporting the APIs which can last. Now these should be 'private', Microsoft eating their own garbage, and reinventing various flavors of square, and other oddly shaped wheels, hey, not everything can be anticipated, and deadlines aren't exactly the stuff that makes for bulletproof decisions.

It's not like Google let's all their knowhow and specific implimentation out there. You don't think with page rank opened up and exposed through their api, people couldn't do interesting things? Things google might not be interested in? I'm sure they could. But they don't. At least in microsofts case, they don't deny people outright the change to develop amazing and interesting things on their platform.

In this case, google was complaining about having to stop a service with their installer. If that's too much for them, maybe I shouldn't be using google ANYTHING at all.

Re:blah blah blah

[Anonymous Freak]

Speaking of which, when should we be hearing Google going after Apple for Spotlight?

I agree. I'm a Mac fanboy, but still, it seems that every thing Microsoft gets blasted for being anti-competitive about, Apple is praised for doing. Safari killed IE, Yay Safari! iTunes killed all other media players, Yay iTunes! Dashboard killed Konfabulator, Yay Dashboard! Spaces is about to kill off all the virtual desktop utilities, Yay Spaces! Now with Spotlight, we don't have any direct competition, but it's still something Microsoft has done that was complained bout, and nobody is complaining about Apple.

Re:blah blah blah

[suzerain]

Not sure why this was modded insightful; maybe you and all the mods slept through the late '90s. Microsoft wasn't rebuked for bundling a Web browser; rather, the main complaints were:

(1) The browser could not be reasonably uninstalled (perhaps minor complaint, although it was always running, and sucking resources even when not in use)

(2) Microsoft leveraged its monopoly position to create deals with OEMs such that they could not have Windows licenses unless they agreed NOT to bundle Netscape or other competing browsers in the default install. (the more major complaint, IMO, since it's a pretty clear example of leveraging a monopoly position to prevent competition)

In this situation, I would absolutely argue that an operating system should include robust search (it's perhaps more pertinent to the core function than a web browser); just that Microsoft ought not to put in any booby traps that prevent Google's thing from running, and not try to prevent OEMs from installing it if they want to.

Therefore, personally, I'm of the opinion of many here...I can't entirely agree with Google, but what goes around comes around. Microsoft stuck it to Netscape in kind of a bad way, and they deserve some payback, eventually (especially as the whole DOJ thing was kind of a farce).

A little bit of arrogance?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista Just a bit?

Re:blah blah blah

[DECS]

You make a couple comments that are technically true, but gloss over details to an absurd degree.

"IE4 surpassed Navigator in marketshare some time in 1999." Who cares? The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later. That's leverage. Part of that leverage in 1997 was MS using threats of delaying Office for Mac to get Apple to sign an exclusive deal to only put IE on the Mac desktop.

--
Mac Office, $150 Million, and the Story Nobody Covered

"In July of 1997, the ongoing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft appeared to vanish with the announcement a new cooperative partnership. Why did Microsoft invest millions in a partnership with its most obvious remaining competitor in the desktop operating system market? "
--

MS didn't have to "surpass" anyone in market share immediately, it only had to suffocate Netscape and destroy its cross-platform strategy so there were no choices left. After there is no choice, MS is your choice.

I agree that Netscape screwed up its own game. However, MS not only put a bullet into Netscape's head, but further monopolized the browser market, to the point where the only competitors since have been a free project and a few niche micro-minorities: Opera on mobiles, and Safari on the Mac. That is not an open market.

Your comments about there being no market for Linux or Mac OS X on PCs fallacious; if you don't know how OEM contracts work, go look it up. There is no open market for PC OS and hasn't been since the early 90s. Apple could not find licensees the same way Linux can't get OEMs to offer it outside of a token hobbyist offering. Those contracts were all tied up by MS.

Nothing is free. If you want the browser to be free, and MS to provide it, you are inviting MS to run your desktop. Good for you, I don't care. The problem is that the market should not be dominated by any player with the ability to set prices and prevent innovation, particularly not the tech market.

You can also support mob protection for your block because they do such a good job, but that doesn't mean the world shouldn't enforce racketeering laws. Most of us don't want to live in a shitty world run by thugs.

You provide a good example of someone with an argument but without much grasp of what has happened, is happening, or will happen if the status quo is maintained. That makes your arguments, which are easy to pull apart, simply not worth very much.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[lilfields]

Rumor has it that Yahoo will not have an independent search engine for long if News Corp takes stake in them, supposedly the search will be outsourced using Google's search index, like it was in the old days when Yahoo was an actual popular "search engine"...and in my experience Microsoft and Google's search engines turn up results that are way better than Yahoo's in regards to relevance...and Live and Google actually turn up nearly the same thing. Google is just more comfortable and faster. Live used to have this AJAX interface where you never had to change pages when it was in beta, I actually liked that feel. As far as I know they no longer offer that though. The only problem with Live I really have is that Google crawls many many more pages. I think Google has secured a huge chunk of the search market with Gmail, which still remains the easiest to use email service, at least in my opinion.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's a matter of simply turning off vista search, or how Google desktop may be 10% slower than vista's own. I'm thinking that the whole issue is not this simple.
 
Vista searches probably feed Live with info on your interests, so it gives Live the advantage over google in search accuracy. Google is probably asking microsoft to let them make a drop in replacement for vista's search, one that will not alter the user's experience using his OS. The user would use his OS the same way (same search box, the same place, comparable performance), but the engine would be powered by Google.
 
So, if the connection between desktop search and internet search is made, it is quite clear that MS _is_ using it's dominant position to cut off Google.

downloading a brower?

[phorm]

Back in the day a disk came that had your browser (netscape) when you signed up for internet service. Nowadays your DSL/cable modem still comes with a disc in most cases, so why not have an easily installable firefox, netscape, or opera, whatever on there?

Why not Google Desktop for Linux????????

[hawarnekar]

I am still not able to understand why has Google not yet come up with a version of Google Desktop for Linux.

Re:Why not Google Desktop for Linux????????

[Ravnen]

There's no deep mystery about it: the Linux user base is simply too small to be of interest to an advertising firm like Google.

Google's objective is not to attack Microsoft, it's to deliver targeted advertising to PC users. Google Desktop is just another tool used to profile and mine the data of users. To the extent that Vista's search feature makes Google Desktop redundant, it reduces Google's ability to profile users and mine their data, which in turn makes it harder to target advertising at them.

Re:Why not Google Desktop for Linux????????

[hawarnekar]

I See... Within a week of my post Google has released its first version of Google Desktop for Linux http://desktop.google.com/linux/.
Thanks to Google for listnening.....

Re:Err...

[ardle]

They should have patented the idea; then they wouldn't have had to deal with the problem of other people actually implementing it.

Google's business is targeted ads, not search

[AHumbleOpinion]

Something is getting lost in all this talk about searching. Google is not really a "search" company, they are a targeted advertising company. Searches are just a means to build profiles on us, as is gmail. Microsoft and Google are fighting over who gets to profile us and collect the targeted advertising revenue streams.

Re:Google's business is targeted ads, not search

[logixoul]

Where are those ads you speak of? Oh that's right, next to the search results!

Re:Google's business is targeted ads, not search

[AHumbleOpinion]

Where are those ads you speak of? Oh that's right, next to the search results!

You are mistaken, extremely so. When you are browsing various websites the ads that you see are targeted, not everyone is getting the same ad. Basically the website pays Google to tell the website which banner ad to show you. And of course Google uses the website's query to keep track of your browsing habits and further develop their profile. You do not need to search to be profiled. And of course, Google is not alone in this business, and *that* is what all this fighting is about, *not* about who gets to fulfill your search.

Re:blah blah blah

[drsmithy]

Who cares?

Anyone who's interested in information other that parroted anti-Microsoft FUD.

The real fact to consider is that IE resulted in an immediate plunge in Netscape's market share, from over 80% in 1996 to being a minority a year later.

Rubbish. It took years for IE to displace Navigator. In 1999, the market was only just starting to see IE use exceed Navigator use. Further, Navigator's decline lines up exactly with its increasing levels of suckiness.

That's leverage.

Indeed. The "leverage" of a superior product. Cunning and dastardly work, to be sure.

Part of that leverage in 1997 was MS using threats of delaying Office for Mac to get Apple to sign an exclusive deal to only put IE on the Mac desktop.

Undoubtedly without that extra 1% or so of marketshare such a deal represented, IE would have been an abject failure.

"In July of 1997, the ongoing rivalry between Apple and Microsoft appeared to vanish with the announcement a new cooperative partnership. Why did Microsoft invest millions in a partnership with its most obvious remaining competitor in the desktop operating system market? "

I've read the site before and it is an excellent example of anti-Microsoft FUD and conspiracy theories. Presumably you're quoting it here to take advantage of the general anti-Microsoft sentiment of Slashdot.

I agree that Netscape screwed up its own game.

Which is all that really matters, given that most of your arguments are hanging off the example of Netscape's failure being somehow due to underhanded and/or illegal Microsoft machinations.

However, MS not only put a bullet into Netscape's head, but further monopolized the browser market, to the point where the only competitors since have been a free project and a few niche micro-minorities: Opera on mobiles, and Safari on the Mac. That is not an open market.

At which time in the past were you thinking of when the browser "market" _wasn't_ made up of one or two giants and a handful of "micro-niche minorities" ? First there was Mosaic, then there was Navigator and Mosaic, then there was Navigator and IE, then there was IE, now there is IE and Firefox.

How is the current situation in any way unusual, given the history of the web browser ?

Your comments about there being no market for Linux or Mac OS X on PCs fallacious; if you don't know how OEM contracts work, go look it up.

Then why aren't people out there raking in money hand-over-fist selling PCs running Linux, if the demand is so high ? Forget the major sellers, if - as you imply - people are desparate to buy Linux PCs, why aren't there dozens of startups selling them as fast as they can put them together ?

There is no open market for PC OS and hasn't been since the early 90s.

It has always been trivial to buy a PC with the OS you want, or without an OS at all.

Apple could not find licensees the same way Linux can't get OEMs to offer it outside of a token hobbyist offering. Those contracts were all tied up by MS.

Ridiculous. The last time Apple licensed clone Macs it nearly killed them. While Macs are much more competitively priced these days, significantly reducing the likelihood of that happening again, "whitebox Macs" would work directly against the main things that makes Apple "cool" - exclusivity and perceived premium.

Steve Jobs has *zero* interest in Macintoshes being sold by anyone except Apple. Unlike you, he has an excellent understanding of what it is that makes Apple successful, and why people buy (or covet) Apple products. I only wish I'd had more money on hand to plough into Apple stock back in '97 when he took over as CEO.

Nothing is free. If you want the browser to be free, and MS to provide it, you are inviting MS to run your desktop.

I don't care who provides it. I use Firefox on all my PCs, regardless of whether they're running Windows, Linux, OS X, S

jeez

[VariableGHz]

Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely

I get that Google's peeved and everything -- but since when did it become improper for an OS to index the harddrive? Why should Microsoft allow that to be disabled?! What, then, if GDS is uninstalled later on and Vista search doesn't start back up, for example? It just seems like a basic thing that should be part of an OS.

Re:blah blah blah

[AnyoneEB]

Actually, I was just pointing out that IE is not required for downloading Firefox on Windows. Anyway, the bundled command line ftp client (up to Windows XP at least; I have not checked on Vista) is an old build of the standard BSD FTP client. I assume that Microsoft made little or no modifications to the code.

Re:WTF with GOOG?

[Aliriza]

Google should not worry they are faremost the best search engine , but I see that they have some worries.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[chenjeru]

While you do have some valid points, remember that Google is at the care an ADVERTISING company. Their prime revenue comes from the huge volume of ads embedded in individual pages, not directly through search.

Re:huh

[Ravnen]

Alan Greenspan put it rather well:

The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice's Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn't, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat." It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge's verdict -- after the fact.

Re:huh

[SnowZero]

I wonder why Microsoft doesn't make more of these features as seperate applications that integrate into the system using public apis. The answer to that one would be pretty obvious. MSFT is a dominant force in large part because it keeps integrating things in ways such that they can't be replaced or removed. Remember IE being a required core part of the OS? I hate bundling with a passion, even when the cable company is doing it. That's a major reason why I use FOSS, I get choices to make, rather than restrictions and hoops to jump through if I want to make something work how I want.

Google to M$

[palemantle]

To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie/book:

"Men of Redmond, my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when they call Google an illegal monopoly... when we run around trying to defend ourself, wondering how in Arda we are going to sell our shiny new product ... but it is NOT this day! This day, we FUD! We come after all that you hold dear, Men of Redmond!"

Re:blah blah blah

[SnowZero]

Well, what if all image formats opened in Paint when you click on them, and there was no way to disable that? Adobe would be allowed to put a hook into Paint itself, so that after loading in Paint, it could then also pop up Photoshop. That's pretty much the equivalent situation.

Re:blah blah blah

[SnowZero]

That's only for people who think "optional" and "immutable" mean the same thing, as apparently you do. There is a difference.

Re:blah blah blah

[SnowZero]

make it easy to swap out the filesystem, or kernel, or shell. (All while guaranteeing system stability, of course) Ah, so you've heard of Debian.

Re:huh

[zootm]

Vista searches probably feed Live with info on your interests, so it gives Live the advantage over google in search accuracy.

This is blatantly ridiculous. People are not stupid, and they'd spot this, and Microsoft are simply not dumb enough to try it. Collecting this sort of data would at least require a waiver in the OS licence, and I guarantee you that if it were there you'd have heard about it by now.

Google is probably asking microsoft to let them make a drop in replacement for vista's search, one that will not alter the user's experience using his OS. The user would use his OS the same way (same search box, the same place, comparable performance), but the engine would be powered by Google.

This is pretty much exactly what they're asking; the issue is whether this should be a replaceable element of the operating system. Obviously file indexing is a pretty core function of most modern operating systems, and it's not like Apple have announced plans to allow users to replace Spotlight or anything, and I doubt that would be easy on a technical level.

It's an interesting issue in any case. Making it replaceable when it's hooked so closely into the system is technically difficult (especially when it's not a core requirement of the system) and offers very little in terms of tangible benefits. The main issue, though, is that Vista's release schedule was so long that third-party replacements such as Google Desktop Search had appeared to provide this functionality on top of the existing system.

Dead silence...

[SnowZero]

Hey, where are all the replies? Did iluvcapra's facts get in the way of your argument?

It's plain wrong

[Jeppe Salvesen]

The problem is that Microsoft is (ab)using its market dominance in order to kill a product (Google Desktop) by replicating it in a new version, and then making it harder for the original to operate/compete.

I think it's despicable behavior that needs to be cracked down upon. Abusing your near-monopoly position in order to cheaply undercut competition is not acceptable. The end-result will be inferior products, as competition is stifled when the OS locks out competing products. And no matter whether Google or Microsoft is the most evil or childish, it's the end result and the lawfulness that matter.

Re:huh

[bl8n8r]

When I look at the history of Microsoft regarding competition*, it's clear to me that this is exactly how it starts. They find a product they want to compete with and then use the windows desktop to *force* users into using their product rather than the competing one. It obviously shows,most importantly, how microsoft cannot compete without arm-twisting, or anti-competitive practices. Internet Explorer and Netscape are a prime example of this. Paranoid? Perhaps, but it's based on historical fact. Google is wise to treat this as a shot across the bow and raise hell about it now. I don't think it's too far fetched to assume Microsoft is attempting to shove Google further off the desktop. Freedom to choose is obviated in that you need to have choice in order to have freedom. Microsoft has a long track record of not being willing to allow choice or competition.

[*] - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft+sti fle+competition

Re:huh

[Movi]

Now here is what I don't understand. Some time ago Google Desktop for Mac was released. I believe it also ahs an search-index system in that. Did they attack/tell apple to shut down Spotlight? I believe Tiger doesn't have a way to shut down Spotlight either.

the bundled s**t should be optional AND removable

[pbhj]

Well, come now. Tell me you didn't expect - "install linux" as a response to this?!

Optional - check, you don't have to buy a MS OS.
Removable - check, logically and physically removable.

So I'm also going to go with a car analogy just to finish off nicely (incidentally in Soviet Russia your posts finish you off with some hot grits ... or something): If you buy a car with 4 seats and only use 2 do you complain that the company welded the seat stanchions in?

Re:Google, cease and desist ! (or shutup and putup

[Ravnen]

No, you cannot disable vista's indexing. And why should you ?

Where does this idea come from? The Windows Search service is just an ordinary Windows service (daemon in Unix terms), and there is nothing stopping a user with administrator privileges turning it off or disabling it entirely.

Am I missing something?

[kazade84]

Everyone is saying Google is in the wrong here, but I can't see how. Google isn't saying Vista shouldn't include a search engine, it's saying it should be possible to replace it with a competing search engine. At the moment (if I read this right, I dunno for sure I dont have Vista) you can install Google's Desktop search, but Vistas search will continue to index thus slowing the computer down. To any non-tech-savy user this is going to look like Google's software is at fault, but the system is actually doing twice as much.

Google is right to kick up a fuss about this, coz M$ has pretty much (indirectly) stopped people using Google software by using their OS monopoly.

Re:huh

[McGiraf]

Microsoft is infringing on 365 of my patents. I will not tell you which ones. But if you are using windows I can sell a license for these , or I can sue you.

Re:huh

[vhogemann]

What's "evil" anyway?

Good and Bad are artificial definitions created by us, so we could set some rules to be able to live on a society. We didn't born with them, we have to learn them from our parents, teachers, friends and ... foes.

So to answer your question, is just a matter of Google creating their own definition for evil... Maybe this little vendetta against Microsoft doesn't look like evil to them. Take for an example the definition of "do no evil" followed by Batman and The Punnisher.

Google is now more evil than MS

[Alexpkeaton1010]

Ponder me this riddle:

What search would you rather use:
1.) a search designed by a company that makes money by selling you an OS, and therefore includes a search engine as a feature to help sales, or
2.) a search designed by a company that makes money by saving your search results and serving you targeted spam?

Re:Google is now more evil than MS

[neminem]

I'd rather use the search that I think will get me better search results. I don't care what company it is that produces the search, I just care about the results. Let's see: from other products they've made recently, MS seems to be run by arrogant idiots, and Google seems to be run by arrogant geniuses. I'll go with the one more likely to be produced by competent people.

Oh no, they've saved my search results. If the government ever comes spying, they'll find out that I've searched for... ok, well, I suppose that I've searched for torrents makes me a copywrite offender. But other than that.

Re:blah blah blah

[The Spoonman]

Well technically its about abusing a monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage over competitors....Microsoft did it previously with Internet Explorer.

Well, technically, it's not. It's about providing the most basic software necessary for people to do with their computers what they bought the computer to do. IE may not be the best browser, but it allows Granny Jane to surf the web, find recipes and look at videos of her grandchillens. Outlook Express isn't the best mail client, but she can send mails to her kids to start feeding them grandchillens of hers! They look soooo thin! If Granny Jane wants to use another browser, there's nothing stopping her from doing so whatsoever. If she wants to use another mail client, there's nothing stopping her. If she wants to use a different desktop search, there was never anything stopping her. Yes, MS holds a monopoly on the desktop OS market, but that doesn't mean their actions are monopolistic. Ever other OS, including all Linux distributions, ships with a browser and mail client. How can you expect MS not? "Ohhh, but you have a CHOICE of browser when you use one of those OSes". No I don't. Most distros ship with Firefox as the default browser. What if I want to use Konquerer? I HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE!! Shame on those Linux geeks for forcing me to use Firefox!

Apply this reasoning to a Vista drive search thing vs Google drive search thing and you can see where this is heading.

Yes, another sham DOJ trial where MS' competitors all line up to complain that the reason their crappy software failed wasn't because the software was crappy, but because MS wouldn't let them compete. They'll make up crap all over the place, the technically inept /. crowd will shout "see, we were right!!", taxpayers will spend billions of dollars and nothing will change. All because the MS search feature, which is on an MS OS from MS was turned on by default instead of some third-party app that replaces it anyway. Yay. Can you smell the excitement?

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[Prophet of Nixon]

For that matter, www.live.com is providing more refined search results that Google lately, with less crap and more relevant links. I still cross-check stuff on Google sometimes, but it hasn't been my primary search for a few weeks.

It kind of scares me how Google's attitudes have been changing recently, since I love and am tightly bound to GMail, and I'm not sure how much longer I can trust it. And changing primary email addresses can be a ton of trouble, what with all of the people who can't remember where to mail me at anyway.

And for the record, you couldn't pay me to install Google Desktop Search. I'd rather have a virus.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[hapalibashi]

Open up an API and the race to have the default integrated web search will be on. MS are certainly holding back for fear of legal repercussions. However if Google could replace WDS with GDS + web results, what would stop Microsoft from enhancing WDS? SO open it up, I'll be happy to have WDS include the web! Google's Adobe and Dell payoffs are giving Google an advantage, but if such an integrate GDS showed adverts, or even scanned local files and show related adverts (as Googlemail does) I can see a lot of people quickly out of GDS. More so if it starts reporting search results and keywords back to Google, though then I would hope that Vista reports abnormal malware behaviour offers to block it... Of course, there is a slim chance Google would do a good job.

In related news...

[elrous0]

Linus Thorvalds demands that MS allow installation of an alternative kernal in Windows, claiming Microsoft's current insistence on using its own kernal limits consumer choice.

Re:blah blah blah

[Frosty Piss]

As you very well know the Vista file indexing service can be turned off. It's not a "hidden" feature. Your FUD is lamer than Microsoft's.

Re:here's why google is doing it, guys:

[GarfBond]

And if Microsoft were to use the strategy you suggest, how is that any different from MSFT leveraging their desktop monopoly to gain share in the Internet search space, something they've been doing very poorly at thus far? Just because Google has a dominant share doesn't make an action like that of Microsoft's legal.

Re:blah blah blah

[DECS]

How about some facts?

Look at Wikipedia's reports of various market share stats for that period. There is no controversy that Netscape's market share plunged in 1997. Now look up the browser MS shipped in 1997. It was not a superior product competing in the market place, because nobody chose IE; they got it by default.

Sure, after MS set up a barrier to Netscape's business plan, it could then invest more into browser development. After 1997, Netscape could do very little, while MS rapidly released three major new versions in 97, 99, and 2001.

What needs to be noted is what happened after AOL/Netscape/Mozilla stopped delivering anything as a competitor. Microsoft, without any further need to take the browser market, froze development of the browser for half a decade. Another version of IE wasn't delivered until 2006, and only because Firefox was starting to compete again.

You can say all you want about what "Steve Jobs" wants or knows, but since you can't understand why anticompetitive behavior and monopoly maintenance are bad for markets, I also have to assume you know nothing about what was going on inside Apple.

We also know, because Jobs announced it, that Jobs did try to sign fair contracts with cloners, and we also know (those of us that do) that Jobs entertained the idea of broadly licensing Rhapsody and YellowBox for Windows. That was NeXT's business model, and Apple tried to maintain it under the name Apple Enterprise.

The problem was that OEMs like HP and Dell would have nothing to do with Apple because Microsoft threatened to raise their Windows OEM prices dramatically if they did. Dell even scrambled to move its web store from NeXT's WebObjects to Microsoft's ASP after Apple bought NeXT.

Linux faces the same barriers to competition, but largely lacks the marketing muscle of Apple, making it even more difficult to line up and offerings of Linux on name brand hardware. Dell's placeholder Linux offerings are quite obviously bullshit, and as was recently reported, it will not sell them to businesses at all. Why not?

You have sassy comebacks for all sorts of things, but they are all based on fact free assertions. You also seem happiest when building strawmen and asserting your victory in ripping them apart. I did not admit any problems in a "primary argument" I never made. Instead, I linked to the article I wrote where one of the main points was that Netscape failed due to its own problems, both in strategy and in development.

Microsoft used Netscape's weakness in order to dominate the market, tying the web platform to its monopoly on the desktop and injecting proprietary extensions in order to make web apps require IE on Windows. That prevented any opportunity for competition, and ended any vehicle for Sun's Java. MS pretended to support Java on its own browser, but only with the intent of leading Sun down a dark hallway and shooting it when out of sight. That helped prevent any sort of meaningful cross platform way to deliver applications.

If you can't fathom a link between "no competition" and "no innovation," and want me to list innovations that are being prevented by anti-competitive behavior, I'll have to leave it at that, because there's no point in arguing with someone who willfully chooses to be obtuse. You may as well demand proof for the roundness of the Earth, evidence of man-made climate change, or a complete study on why dumping more war into Iraq won't solve the problems.

-

Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer

Re:huh

[h2_plus_O]

No, what's happening here is simpler than that.
Windows has had built-in search forever, and it was never a concern to competitors because it sucked. Vista search does not suck- it blows the doors off of Google's desktop search- which is why it's suddenly anticompetitive.

You can't blame Google for playing the monopoly card here. You can roll your eyes tho, at the unintended consequence of anti-monopoly regulation, which in this case seems to punish the improvement of the product most people use (windows), for the sake of competitors that happen (in this case) to have inferior technology in this area.
You also can't blame Microsoft for developing a better mousetrap- they need to provide something compelling or else they'll be irrelevant and quickly at that.
It seems that Microsoft and Google each have a tiger by the tail, and are fighting for their survival, which would be good for us as consumers if the sort of fighting they were doing resulted in better technology. ...litigation, unfortunately, seems to produce crippleware instead of anything anybody wants.

Not about desktop search

[Rob Y.]

I'm not sure Google cares that much about desktop search per se. They probably think they can do a better job of it than Microsoft, but assuming Vista provided equal access to the desktop search database, I don't thing Google would care that much.

The real point, and where Vista *is* anticompetitive is that the built-in search wants to integrate Microsoft's version of Internet search into the built-in desktop search viewer. Internet search is not a feature of the OS - or any desktop OS I know of, and there's no reason Microsoft should be able to use their desktop monopoly to make it look like their internet search is built-in while other engines are added on. In the light of past anticompetitive behavior and agreements, that's not legal.

It appears that the hooks between desktop search and an internet search engine *have* been built into Vista, and there's no good reason other than the anticompetitive one for the relevant API's to be limited to Microsoft.

Re:Not about desktop search

[zootm]

This is an interesting point, I'm aware of no such link. I would think that the connected web search would use IE's search, which is definitely vendor-agnostic. Can you provide more information? I'm afraid I don't have an installation of Vista to check this on.

Re:huh

[zootm]

You could be right, but wouldn't there still be an advantage even if your info wasn't sent to live, but the query to live was optimized by vista's search to better reflect what you are actually looking for?

I'm afraid I'm really not sure what you're saying here; are you saying that if a desktop search was translated to an internet search after being "optimised" in some way that, if the internet search vendor was Windows Live, that the implicit details of the optimisation could be used to infer the preferences of the user? I'm really not sure it's common or important enough to be significant, but I suppose it's an interesting angle.

Re:blah blah blah

[drsmithy]

Look at Wikipedia's reports of various market share stats for that period. There is no controversy that Netscape's market share plunged in 1997. Now look up the browser MS shipped in 1997. It was not a superior product competing in the market place, because nobody chose IE; they got it by default.

(Using "EWS Web Server at UIUC" figures because they are the most detailed. Relatively simplistic analysis because I'm damned if I'm going to waste too much time arguing with someone trolling for hits on their soapbox website.)

For most of 1997 Microsoft was shipping IE3. IE3 was considered to be - overall - on par with Navigator 3. While it was not as good in some areas, it was better in others.

Navigator's market share dropped from ~75% at the start of 1997, to ~65% in September.

In February 1997 (from memory, could be a month off either way), the first IE4 beta was released (warez copies of it and the cancelled "Nashville" update which would have introduced it had been floating around the 'net since late 1996) . In September 1997, IE4 proper was released, a far superior browser to Navigator 3 or 4. In the remaining 3 months of 1997, Navigator's market share dropped a further 5%, to ~60%.

So, they lost 10% in the first 3/4 of the year, mostly (~7%) to a product that was roughly equivalent, and the rest to a series of betas. However, they lost the final 5% in 3 months, straight after the release of IE4 - and that extra market share went directly to IE4 (IE4's marketshare went from 2% - 3% in September 1997 to ~13% in December 1997).

The first 6 months of 1998 tell a similar story. Navigator drops from ~60% to ~50%. IE4's share grows from ~13% to ~19%. In June 1998, Windows 98 was released (with IE4).

So, over 18 months, Netscape lost ~25% of the market - but it lost the majority of that (~19%) to IE4 (before IE4 was included in any version of Windows). Clearly a case of users _deliberately_ deserting Navigator for the superior IE4 browser.

Moving onto the second half of 1998, we see Navigator's fall slowed, only losing ~5%. IE4 continues to gain, however, stealing significant marketshare especially from IE3 (I'm sure you'll attribute this to bundling with Windows 98, conveniently forgetting Windows 98's relatively slow adoption). IE4 ends 1998 with ~40% of the browser market.

Sure, after MS set up a barrier to Netscape's business plan, it could then invest more into browser development. After 1997, Netscape could do very little, while MS rapidly released three major new versions in 97, 99, and 2001.

In fact, Netscape were doing a great deal, desperately trying to rewrite their browser from the ground up so it could have a chance of competing with Microsoft's largely-from-scratch IE4. It was this major error that was the real reason Navigator 4 sucked so much - Netscape were too busy with their other codebase.

What needs to be noted is what happened after AOL/Netscape/Mozilla stopped delivering anything as a competitor. Microsoft, without any further need to take the browser market, froze development of the browser for half a decade. Another version of IE wasn't delivered until 2006, and only because Firefox was starting to compete again.

Microsoft were hardly the only ones. The only significant change to the web browser in the last decade since IE4, is the introduction of tabbed interfaces (which weren't exactly an outrageously obscure idea either).

You can say all you want about what "Steve Jobs" wants or knows, but since you can't understand why anticompetitive behavior and monopoly maintenance are bad for markets, I also have to assume you know nothing about what was going on inside Apple.

A straw man, ad hominem and a non-sequitor all rolled into one. Nicely done.

We also know, because Jobs announced it, that Jobs did try to