Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint

Raver32 writes to tell us that Microsoft will be making changes to their desktop search tool in Vista after a 49-page antitrust complaint was filed by Google. "Microsoft initially dismissed the allegations, saying regulators had reviewed the program before Vista launched. However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary."

Something fishy

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

When I read the slashdot discussion when the complaint first appeared I was initially supportive of google. But after reading rest of the discussions I became quite ambivalent about the merits of Google's complaint. But now MSFT is doing an about face. Sounds fishy. It must have done something more than simply providing a desktop search. Otherwise MSFT would not change its stance this quickly.

Also I am reminded of the fights between AOL and MSFT about allowing the PC makers to install additional icons in the desktop touting services that competed with MSN etc back in the Win95/98 time frame. AOL won, but it became irrelevant eventually. Will the scenario repeat? Has google jumped the shark?

How Helpful.

[Anonymous Coward]

"In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance."

Considering how MS is reluctant to give the requisite technical information even to companies that are developing software and drivers in cooperation with MS, I am skeptical of this. More likely, they mean that by "provide technical information" they throw them a copy of "Microsoft for Dummies" and say "Deal."

So

[xinjiang77]

Either Google wants to control our OS or media search engines have turned into whiny conglomerates that fight over whose right it is to search what. I am more concerned about Google throttling competition than MS.

Digging into the article

[jeevesbond]

From TFA:

In response to claims that Vista's "Instant Search" slows competing products, Microsoft agreed to give competitors technical information to help optimize performance.

The bit most interesting to me was this. Does this mean that Microsoft have done again what they were penalised for in 2000 [dwightsilverman.com]? Two of the restrictions placed upon it then were:

Requiring Microsoft to disclose technical details about the inner workings of its operating systems to those wanting to write software for them. Competitors had complained that Microsoft had secret "hooks" in Windows that it used to make its applications perform better.

Barring Microsoft from including code in its programs that would hurt the performance of competing products. Competitors charged that Microsoft deliberately designed products to hamper the way other programs work.

So, I imagine they're back to using the secret API for the Microsoft search, while slowing down the 'official' APIs third parties must use. Although the press item only has one sentence on it, this 'optimisation' issue is as important as Microsoft providing a competing product to Google Desktop Search in my opinion.

I assume the technical information handed over to Google will be details of how to access key parts of Microsoft's hidden-hook goodies?

WDS slows down *everything*

[rrohbeck]

Google filed a 49-page document with the Justice Department in April claiming Vista's desktop search tool slowed down competing programs, including Google's own free offering, and that it's difficult for users to figure out how to turn off the Microsoft program.

It creates so much IO load that so far every machine I used it on got down to a crawl once it indexed a couple 100,000 files. I guess that's why they turn it off automatically once any user interaction is noticed. But by then it has consumed so much virtual memory that every other app has to be paged back in slowly. That gets better with 2 GB of memory but not much. Oh well, I guess I need 64bit and 4GB.
It helps to put the index on a different disk than your OS and your page file, but not a lot.

Re:Desktop Search? WTF?

[cp.tar]

Well, no, not exactly.

Though I just love locate, this is a wee bit different. For one, these programs index the content of your documents as well, not just their names. As practical as locate is, it only matches your search to the list of names in the database; I cannot search for a document containing some word.

Of course, that's where grep comes in, but then, grep's database is the fscking filesystem, so it may take a while.

Besides, I can teach my father how to use Beagle. I cannot teach him how to grep.
OK, I could, but I don't have the time.

Re:Wow!

[stephanruby]

"You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. "

Part of the problem is that the lines are being blurred between file explorer and internet explorer, and search and OS search. As terms and concepts we all took for granted when the agreements were written get redefined to mean something entirely different -- previous legal settlements that were based on those concepts may also get called into question and redefined as well.

Paying Free Software? Libel!

[twitter]

Right, by paying firefox (and others) to default to google search.

If this is false and you know it and M$ paid you to put it here, you have just libled Google on M$'s behalf. That's nothing new to M$ [essential.org], which is a good reason to take a large grain of salt along when anyone starts defending M$ about anything.

I mean, really. Does Google pay KDE to make them the default search engine in Konqueror? Do they then pay Debian to do the same thing to Iceweasel and Konqueror? Do they pay me? No, I just know that Google rocks and no one is even close when it comes to quick and accurate searches. The same logic walks back up the free software chain though distributions to the actual coders. When a better search engine comes along, it's going to replace Google as the default or it will be easier to chose between them.

Re:Wow!

[catbutt]

Apple could shut down tomorrow and it would adversely effect less than 10% of all PC users out there.

Obviously, you don't understand a thing about economics or competition. Companies without competition produce crappy, overpriced products. Windows users would most definitely be adversely affected by Apple going away.