Slashdot Mirror
Google Makes Case to Join Microsoft Antitrust Case
Rob writes "Computer Business Review magazine is reporting that Google has filed papers with the US
district judge overseeing Microsoft's compliance with its 2002 antitrust settlement,
outlining why it believes it has a special interest in helping
to ensure Microsoft remains in compliance. The judge has declined Google's assistance. From the article: 'Google had complained that the search engine built into Vista constituted "middleware" under the terms of the antitrust settlement and that Microsoft was therefore extending its desktop monopoly into a new market. While Microsoft insisted Google's complaint is "without merit" it did agree in late June to make a number of changes to its Vista search engine with Windows Vista Service Pack 1 to give rival desktop search software, including Google Desktop, a more level playing field.'"
tough choice eh? on one hand microsoft's bloatware on another hand google's spyware
Oh yeah, Spotlight just from a small company out in Cupertino. Nothing to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, TFA is quoting the antitrust case and I think MSFT should open their search engine but I think we should not forget they're not the only ones out there to embed "functionality" in their OS. You can disable Spotlight and install Google search if you want but that's no different from Windows.
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
I hate MS software as much as the next guy, but they should be able to do whatever they damn well please with their OS.
Totally ridiculous.
@~:locate myfile.txt
Works just fine for me ^_^
I wish I had a witty
The future Microsoft wants to bury the current Microsoft. Hmm, that's just about right. The universe is pleased.
But you're not the government and you are overstepping.
doesn't the judge read slashdot?
doesn't he know that
microsoft are the evil empire!
and
google does no evil!
You can tell a bunch of kids "we're good guys" and if your logo is colorful enough, they'll trust you.
But fooling the people in the legal system is a bit more involved than that. I don't like Google trying to mess around where it has no business.
funny how Microsoft can constantly damage competitors products, say their are sorry, and then take close to a year before the actual fix is pushed out. It reminds me of something I saw years ago. You know how Microsoft hates Java and all it means, well developers love it and Microsoft was refusing to make an JDBC interface to their MS SQL Server database. There were 3rd parties doing it and even an open source version IIRC, and finally Microsoft was pressured by customers to build a JDBC driver for their database. The only problem, they stated it would be released to beta in something like 8 months and release a few months later. I think it took over 12 months before it was actually released.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I used to have respect for them. Their attitude towards MS seemed to be "bring it on!" I guess Steve Jobs is the only who is still willing to take on the giant in the market place without the government help. It does seem that those who win legal cases against MS lose to them in the market place soon after. I am not really saying that there is a causality there -- just a correlation. Even Apple took its biggest market share hit right after their we-invented-windows law suit (although Apple lost that one). Anyway, I just wanted to say, it's time for Sergei to start throwing some chair instead whining to the government.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I am not a fan of microsoft-- in fact i refuse to use windows or give my money to microsoft in any way-- but i think that they should have the right to include whatever they want in *their* OS as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor. For example-- back in the day microsoft shipped a microsoft branded java virtual machine that implemented things just a tad differently. People started programming for microsoft's JVM instead of Sun's JVM, effectively attempting to steal the java market from Sun.
It's hard to take Google's claim very seriously, they definitely seem to have an ulterior motive. I suppose the real issue is that there is a lack of options for the mass market. Macs alienate gamers, I'm ignoring boot camp since any argument for that method is asanine, Linux isn't doing much better and it doesn't have an easy PC replacement. To the casual PC user Linux isn't really 'available', really what needs to happen is one of Microsoft's competitiors needs to start taking the market back.
Why does Microsoft not just sign a deal with say Yahoo and have them create the desktop search. Then they just use Yahoo's search instead. So then google has nothing to complain about. Just introduce another company besides Microsoft. So for a media player have WinAmp or someone sign a deal with Microsoft. Then Microsoft give WinAmp the specs on how WMA works exactly etc.
I'm going to offer a tangent given that many /.'s misunderstand Google. 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. Basically who will websites pay to find out which ad banners to show us.
... then Bill Gates will have to admit they're competitors!
libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
And what's wrong with that? It's their damn product. Of COURSE they're going to try to promote it above all else. Do you not do this with your products? Or if you aren't self-employed, does your company not do this? If you don't like it, you're free to use a competitor's product.
So remember folks, everything Microsoft does is designed to promote and protect the Windows operating system. IMO.
Just like everything Linus and the linux kernel team does is to promote and protect the linux kernel.
And everything Steve-o and Apple does is to promote and protect its apple iShinyThing.
And everything Google does is to take your personal information and sell it to the lowest bidder.
call this what you will but it seems like Google's executive board / share holders are going for the throat. Are we beginning to see a trend or is this a wolf in sheep's clothing situation?
All your search are belong to us!
How come is it that ever Microsoft's competitor software breaks when they bring out an upgrade or new OS. This has been happening since Lotus 1-2-3. This time its a Google DLL that craps out as the internet is starting up on Vista, yet its cleanup utilities somehow keep missing the fix. Its very visible and very annoying. Typical Microsoft Cripple your competitors software, cuz we are the only game in town stuff. I got to watch this everyday, another satisfied customer :(
"The judge has declined Google's assistance."
Google's not interested in assisting anything. Like the other companies involved in the MS antitrust case, they simply want the court to help them compete.
Spotlight's not really the same thing, I don't think, but to the extent that it's similar, it's got some fairly good hooks for third-party developers and it's pretty customizable:
o ogleimporter.html
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/spotlight/g
Does Microsoft offer something similar?
Tweet, tweet.
(google) now set us up the targeted advertising!
Microsoft sucks, Google Rocks. In five years, we'll be saying Google Sucks, and someone else (new guy) rocks. The more things change.... the same.
New Music!
Not true - Microsoft was convicted of having an illegal monopoly on desktop x86 operating systems. The court realized that microsoft had anything but a monopoly on server operating systems, and crafted it such that apple's marketshare was ignored.
The Sherman Act does not apply to those which are not monopolies. Morally you may have a point but legally it doesn't hold water.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I'd like to file and offer assitance to the government in this case, but I know that no one would even read my filing or report on it in the news (granted, Slashdot isn't actually "news" in the Deusifian sense, nor cool, but you understand the convention)...but don't worry, dear friends, I know and understand why I can't get any recognition from the government...I have a huge nose and I'm ugly. Google has a small pretty nose and they get all the attention. That bitch.
This gesture was a really nifty way of Google telling Microsoft:
"Comply with your settlement, or we will force you to do so."
Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. I'm sure if no one had complained about the whole Vista search thing, the DoJ would never have taken any issue with it at all. Or, if they had, we'd certainly never know about it.
So Balmer throws a chair across the room and declares war on Google? It would seem otherwise now.
New Music!
The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free
While I'm sure some code and ideas came with Andreeson, I'm given to understand the actual codebases for Navigator and Mosaic were rather different (and indeed, if anybody's browser is based on Mosaic, you could argue it's IE, as it's a direct descendant of the Mosaic codebase under a deal between MS and U of Illinois).
then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.
I don't think that was Netscape's complaint. What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.
Netscape may well have shot itself in the foot even if none of that had happened, but it certainly didn't help at all.
Tweet, tweet.
I continue to be amazed at the posts that continue to be modded up when anything about MS and monopolies gets posted.
a viours
After all the posts that have been made on this board about monopolies, you'd think people would learn and stop begging the question over and over and over.
Look, if you are severely mentally handicapped with regards to monopolies, then read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_beh
If this doesn't help, don't utter another word until you sit down with an Economics professor. Just find one and take him or her out to lunch and ask them to explain Monopolies (make sure you can find one that doesn't talk like Alan Greenspan) and how Monopolies stifle competition and how true capitalism is based on competition, not privatization.
If this doesn't help, you are obviously a plant by Microsoft to continually influence other slashdotters into thinking that what is being done to MS is wrong, or have been duly influenced by said plant.
I swear I'm going to shoot the next person who posts something like this in the head. It's wrong, dead wrong. You may argue that Mr South Park in a wheelchair here might be too new, but he has posts going back quite some time, and he's had to have seen one other article about this.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
You aren't forced to use any of the iApps. There are alternatives to all of them. You are to some extent forced to use the Finder, but there are other programs you can use as your primary file manager, and if you really resent the UI as much as you seem to, you can just use X11. Apple offers the most open platform that is still proprietary, and they don't abuse their dominance in one market to get into another market.
Because I use the right tool for the right job. I use linux boxes and a Mac as well, but certain jobs need to quick and dirty. And that means not figuring out how to install a WiFi card for a day and a half. Of course, when I need an easy text editing, manipulation and revision control, I will use linux. A key to productive and yet happy life is to see your principles as goals rather than inflexible absolutes.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
In this case, instead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering. Similarly, Vista's security lets Microsoft's inferior antivirus run properly, but interferes with the operation of other AV products. Tell me how you, as a consumer, benefit from that.
http://www.mhall119.com
"...as long as it isn't intentionally crippling another companies product or using anti-competitive practices to steal the market from a competitor."
Don't you believe that integrating a competing product into their Monopoly OS IS DOING EXACTLY THAT!
I'm not talking about including separate software that doesn't have to be installed. I'm talking about integration so that it's always there. They did it with their web browser and that killed Netscape now their doing the same F**king thing with their search engine.
Even if you don't use their search engine it's still there and it still slows your system down. Microsoft knows exactly what their doing and it is illegal because of their monopoly. Monopolies can not do all the things a non-monopoly can without causing harm. That's why there are laws which Microsoft apparently feels it doesn't have to follow.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
They're a sheep who saw the wolf coming and decided not to get eaten...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
[I use Windows because] right tool for the right job ... certain jobs need to quick and dirty. And that means not figuring out how to install a WiFi card for a day and a half.
That's the problem with OS sabotage, you end up with fewer and worse tools. What are you going to do with a wifi card if you can't google? You can thank Mr. Gates for the wifi mess too because he does the same things to hardware that he does to software.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
microsoft's desktop search is better than google's.
un burrito me trampeó.
>> In this case, instead of simply making a better desktop search for Windows to compete with Google, Microsoft created a desktop search that interferes with the performance of Google's offering.
Hmm... I might be mistaken, but I don't think Microsoft created a desktop search to interfere with Googles. I think they had one a LONG time ago, and Google is trying to make them take it out so they can replace it.
There might be some features that have changed but Windows (and Office) has shipped with a local indexing engine for quite a while now.
Google saying that Microsoft has to make it replacable just because they want to provide one seems like a bad idea to me. Is this starting down the path that any feature in any system that we want to replace we can use the courts to force the company to disable? Does the replacement have to conform to ALL the API's that the original was providing?
If Google replaces the Microsoft engine, and I was using the Microsoft engine in my application do they break me?
You sound like someone from microsoft. Truth is, Apple is more dominating on their platforms than Microsoft ever was.
The most open platform? Mark my words, someone at Microsoft is saying the same thing.
That's easy. I benefit as a consumer by seeing a big red X next to a bad choice.
The very simple point here is that "antitrust" be damned, Windows is Microsoft's product and as such they should be able to do whatever they want and cripple whomever they want however they choose. Anybody who complains can build their own OS. Who came up with this totally misguided idea that Windows (or anything else for that matter) needs to be open and accessible and not leverage its market dominance to achieve dominance in other areas? This isn't economics -- it's a basic freedom. Economics only applies when somebody else steps in and tries to persuade consumers that they're the better choice.
Or do you cry about your coffee maker not readily accepting third party firmware (or filters, even) too? Because here's a secret: if you do, you as a consumer can make the choice to not buy a coffee maker like that...
There's so much opportunity in the world, and I agree that competition is a good thing. Stopping abusive monopolies is stupid. If a monopoly has to abuse competitors to stay on top, two things are probably true -- 1) the monopoly doesn't offer a compelling product, and 2) the competitors don't offer a compelling product. Why? Because people buy compelling products even if they're expensive (e.g. iPhone). Instead, go compete with a compelling product and make some money...
The free market is a great thing! But freedom can't be enforced...
Unless you're an Imperial Stormtrooper.
A key to productive and yet happy life is to see your principles as goals rather than inflexible absolutes.
I think that was the point you were trying so very hard to avoid.
Or do you enjoy being this bitter?
No matter how much you folks rant and rave, MS is not a monopoly, and in reality, not even the DoJ's proclamation makes it one. You have many choices in OS. Firefox has done just fine with IE installed. The hardware architecture is published so if you want to create and sell an OS for it, go ahead. No where does this fit the definition of a monopoly. So long as you have an alternative, it's not monopoly. PUD, Puget Sound Energy, Comcast, Verizon, those are monopolies because if you want wired telephone, you have to buy it (one way or another) from the government mandated local supplier. Same with electricity, cable television, water ,sewer, garbage collection, etc. If you want to complain about monopolies, complain about the real ones. I finally got fed up with MS when they decided to make WMI (completely unstable, still) a core windows component, and haven't run their products at home since. I think that pretty much removes any and all legitimacy from monopoly claims.
I guess you're too young to know what's going on. I'll keep it short, Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop computer operating systems. Not bad in itself and really what businesses strive for. Now the good part, Microsoft has used that monopoly to block competitors and protect their monopoly product(s). This is legal thing and comes into effect once a company gains monopoly status in a market. Now the really bad part, over the last 15+ years, Microsoft has used anti-competitive practices outside the laws of anti-trust( monopoly stuff ) and went to court with the federal government twice on this. The first time they settled before conviction an agreed to a few things that really didn't stop doing. The second time, they ended up with the same judge who was put in to replace the first judge( first time around ) and he'd been told to settle the original case so he was quite aware of how Microsoft worked and what they were SUPPOSED to do/operate. Well he threw the book at them the second time and all kinds of fun facts made it to the public along with Microsoft losing the case and getting convicted of anti-competitive actions in computer desktop operating systems. They were supposed to be split into 3 or more smaller companies but Bush and his corrupt gang of thieves took over and threw that judge out and put in an ignorant and naive judge who basically told Microsoft to be good and don't do that again.
So, what's "WRONG with that" is that Microsoft is a convicted felon, convicted of using anti-competitive practices to thwart competition, they've done it far more times than they've been in court for it and they are continuing to do the same. If they did not have a monopoly position it would not be an issue. If they were a monopoly AND didn't have a history of constantly using anti-competitive business practices it would not be AS big a deal. But they are, they do and they keep on doing this. As a consumer and/or a person trying to make a buck providing the best product on the market for your customers, you should be bleeping made that this is continueing year after year after year. But if you make money fixing Microsoft software or any of the other many wasteful businesses built on supporting Microsoft Windows, you'll have a very different view.
They should be teaching this stuff in school since there are just soo many how have no clue as to how and why Microsoft is what it is and how it keeps doing this to prevent products from getting to consumers. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
don't get why everyone is bashing google about this
to anyone who writes software and wants to make a living developing software: you want this to happen! it's great there is a new powerful force ready to take on microsoft.
microsoft is a convicted monopolist and isn't granted the usual rights that so many of you are screaming about "it's their product they should be able to do what they want blah blah"
if we didn't have these laws, then microsoft could completely remove any incentive to get into the software business. why would you spend all the money on years of R&D only to find out microsoft in one quick instant can put you out of business. This is why microsoft should be split into an OS company and a general software company. There is no reason to write software for the most popular operating system when the same people who make the operating system control what runs on it or not.
and I realize this may sound like a google-fanboy-rant, but shut up about google desktop being spyware. you can turn those features off. actually, IIRC you have to opt-in to those features. yeah google is only doing this for their own benefit, but we consumers benefit from that.
From what I've read, the only way Microsoft's search service is claimed to 'interfere' with Google's is by existing and being enabled: running two services to index content will of course slow both of them down. The fact that Microsoft's service can easily be turned off or disabled makes this complaint a nonsense. If Google's installer doesn't turn off conflicting services, Google have only themselves to blame.
If there's more to the issue that that, I would appreciate being enlightened. As it is, it looks like Microsoft simply created a better search offering, and Google are whingeing about it because their own offering is no longer competitive.
This is soooo freaking ridiculous. Search(find) has always been a part of any OS and just because windows finally got it right, google is whining. Why not sue Apple for anti-trust because the iPhone doesn't support third party applications. My neighbor wouldn't let me build my shed on his property so I am going to sue him!
Antitrust makes absolutely no sense when applied to software because there's no finite supply of product to corner (unlike oil). "Convicted monopolist" is meaningless. Any legal standard where a company has to compete, compete, compete, then uncompete, uncompete, uncompete at some magic market share threshold is insane. Any hacker in a garage can put out a competitive product, and Linus in fact has. The Sherman Act was never intended to apply to software.
The thing is, Apple's operating system actually does comply with plenty of open standards that have been implemented by others as well (single unix spec, openstep, etc.) On top of that, OS X ships with several major open source packages that function pretty much the same as on other platforms (X11, bsd userland, apache, gcc, etc.)
While it is true that most of the Windows APIs are now accessible to mortals (at some cost), Apple has the track record of actually being interoperable and supporting portable software. The fact that MS and Apple control their respective GUIs tightly is unrelated to the openness of their platforms. The fact that a python script or x11 app can run on a stock (plus optional stuff from the install dvds) OS X system is what makes it an open platform.
The things Apple has done with their proprietary GUI libraries are no better or worse than what MS has done with DirectX, but Apple leaves you an out. With OS X, you still have a real and usable operating system when you choose not to boot into the Aqua UI. With windows, you can't escape.
Google's desktop search sucks. They're never wanted a GUI integrated search anyways, so what are they complaining about? Google's Desktop search is like their online search! It runs in a WEB UI. It does not need gui access, they never needed gui intergration before, so why are they crying?
I'm not pro-Microsoft, but I'm no Google fan boy either. I just wanted to point out the error in the argument presented.
Did they wrap a fish in the anti trust papers.
You are absolutely right. There is API for disabling services. There is API to interact with Windows Search. There is command line tool to disable services. Etc. Etc. I've written about this numerous times and if I remember correctly couple of my posts here in Slashdot even got +5 informative (woohoo!). So only question to ask is, when's the Google Operating System about to be released?
So I think the proper ordering of things goes like...
You don't know what you don't know.
OK, but the lack of an API to disable Vistas indexing isn't what's being contested. In fact, you can read the amicus brief Google submitted to the courts about the issue here.
Here's the key quote:
It seems to me that the complaint is about Microsofts solution either making users jump through hoops (extra clicking for each search) to access the newly installed desktop search engine, or about them possibly just removing UI elements instead of making them configurable. Now you could argue that it's OK for parts of the Vista UI to die or become useless if you disable Vista search on the grounds that you can always create your own UI elsewhere, but I think that would be a bit silly. A key part of the way IE 4 was tied into Windows was via ubiquitous UI integration - whilst users could certainly install an alternative browser, the fact that most parts of the Windows UI still started up IE if you clicked them was a serious problem for Netscape.
My disclaimer is here - I do work for Google but not on anything related to desktop search. I contacted one of our legal/PR people about these Vista Search stories and they told me about this brief, which was released to reporters. As should hopefully be obvious, the opinions I stated here are only my own. As to why this brief is not on our own website, I do not know ....
The AV comment is pure bullshit. Absolutely 100% incorrect.
For quite a while Live OneCare wasn't even available for Vista. AFAIK it STILL hasn't been released for the 64-bit edition, though there is a port in progress.
By comparison, Trend Micro had a public beta of their PC-Cillin 2007 by the time Vista was in public beta (build 5384, well over a year ago). It supports Vista 32-bit and 64-bit editions (as well as XP and 2000).
When I installed the Vista beta and Security Center suggested I install an AV, I clicked the link to recommend one (just for the heck of it, I wasn't going to pay for one as was expecting that's what I'd get... but I also knew Vista's kernel security was going to play havoc with things like Norton Internet Rootkit). Microsoft's own link directed me to PC-Cillin (which I did in fact install, as it was a free beta). I believe OneCare was in beta at the time as well, but was 32-bit XP only. What I am quite sure of is that this was BEFORE Symantec and McAfee strong-armed MS (using this exact type of thing, the "We know that it's not about making your OS better, it's about shutting out compatitors and that's not OK because you were a monopolist say play nice with us!") into opening up PatchGuard. MS, fully aware that PatchGuard was going to interfere with the standard kernel-level hook for realtime AV scanning, had released an API to allow an antivirus program to scan files as they were accessed... and even before Symantec, McAfee, of MS themselves managed to do so, Trend Micro had a perfectly viable product based on that API.
While I don't run PC-Cillin anymore, I can certainly say it was a well-designed program and I experienced none of the numerous problems and annoyances surrounding its better-known competitors. If I were to pay for any AV program, it would probably be that one.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Thank you! Finally someone explained what's all this about. But still I don't see any problem here, at least without further explanation. If you click Start-button you will see "search" option there. What's preventing Google to add "Search using Google" button there? Or is it that Google want's to be the sole search engine and front-end in Windows?
You don't know what you don't know.
The only real argument for the middleware claim is that Microsoft distributes Windows Desktop Search separately for Windows XP. However, this is arguably just an upgrade to the older indexing and search features in XP, and not a separate product. On the whole, the middleware argument is extremely weak, even if it is perhaps not entirely without merit.
You know, they also happen to make a line of media-players, called iPods, which synch with this nifty program called iTunes...
"Make cyberlove, not cyberwar!" -Khaed(544779)
So? The iPod got where it is on its own, without any help from the Mac. And while the iPod has certainly made iTunes more popular, iTunes is still a free application and iPod users don't have to use it unless they are using DRM'd music or purchasing from iTMS. It isn't like the music iTunes offers is not available on CDs too. I don't see any monopolistic abuse there. Just the usual mess with DRM and a product (iPod) that won its dominance in the market fairly.
I didn't mention anything about Macs.
iPod users don't have to use it unless they are using DRM'd music or purchasing from iTMS
There's a way to put music/videos/pics onto an iPod without iTunes? (Rockbox firmware doesn't count, as the non-Slashdot crowd doesn't even know about it.)
I don't see any monopolistic abuse there. Just the usual mess with DRM and a product (iPod) that won its dominance in the market fairly.
Microsoft did the same thing bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. They caused the death of Netscape; is there any online music store as widely-known as iTunes, which just happens to ship with each & every iPod?
"Make cyberlove, not cyberwar!" -Khaed(544779)
1.) Run both MS and Google indexers, and notice performance issues related to having 2 indexing your hard drive at the same time
or
2.) Disable the MS indexer and loose file system search functionality from within Windows Explorer and other Vista components.
Either way, installing Google Desktop Search on Vista now causes an inconvenience for the user, so people are less likely to do so.
http://www.mhall119.com
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Yes I can see the problem now. But still there's technical solutions available. You can add plugins to Explorer like TortoiseSVN does for an example. You can control context menus in Explorer. You can do lot's of customization if you please. In fact I just found this . I don't know how and if it works or does it even work with Vista but I'm sure it can be made to work with Vista.
You don't know what you don't know.
The problem still remains that in order to keep Google's search from slowing down your system, you have to disable parts of Vista that should not have to be disabled. That is Google's complaint, that Microsoft has designed Vista such that nobody would want to stop the Windows Indexer, and therefore by performance extension, nobody would want to run Google's desktop search. Imagine if you had to remove IE in order for Firefox to work right, would you do it? Or would you just use IE?
http://www.mhall119.com
What the heck! How about if I install Google search, disable Windows search, and then some other 3rd party search (without disabling Google search). Then I'd have Google search causing performance issues which is Google's fault? This is just plain stupid. And that IE and Firefox thing is flawed since IE isn't performing system wide services on the background.
I'm wondering if Google should concentrate more on development and less on playing pool and tennis (see that Google video shown on Oprah, can be found from Youtube I think).
You don't know what you don't know.
http://www.mhall119.com