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."

Wow!

[MightyMartian]

They're putting in a link for other search providers! Boy, aren't we glad that MS obeys the spirit of the law, and not just the word.

Re:Wow!

[HellFeuer]

well do you really expect anyone to integrate a third party search into their OS?
why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?

Re:

[catbutt]

well do you really expect anyone to integrate a third party search into their OS?

If they want to conduct business in a country where I'm a voter....well, yes, I indeed expect them to do whatever the hell I want them to do. If they choose to do things that don't benefit me, I have the right to elect leaders that make and prosecute laws that prevent them from continuing it. Luckily, many of those laws are already in place since the days when Standard Oil, AT&T and others tried to abuse their respective monopolies.

why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?

Apple hasn't been been convicted as a monopolist. Also Google searc

Re:Wow!

[endianx]

If they want to conduct business in a country where I'm a voter....well, yes, I indeed expect them to do whatever the hell I want them to do.

Scary. I knew people thought this way, but I thought it was subconscious.

If you don't like the way a company does business, just don't buy their product.

Re:

[endianx]

Because you are in the minority in your disapproval of those companies. You won't get the government to do anything about it either if that is the case.

Re:Wow!

[SEMW]

You have a point. There is indeed a hint of WTF in this story. I mean, we're not talking about middleware like WMP here -- we're talking about finding files on the user's hard drive. If that's ruled to be no longer a core OS function to the extent that Microsoft are legally obliged to offer alternatives to it with the OS, you have to wonder what's next...

Newswire - 21st June, 2017

Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) has announced they will be bundling the Linux kernel with Windows as an alternative to their own, after a 490-page antitrust complaint was filed by the Linux foundation. "We are extremely pleased with this development", Linux kernel BDFL Linus Torvalds was quoted as saying. "For too long have Microsoft been able to get away with forcefully bundling the NT kernel with their OS, forcing other products out of the market in clear violation of antitrust law as it applies to convicted monopolists. No longer!"

This development is not without precedent. After the original case in 2007 forced Microsoft to offer alternative hard drive search tools with the OS, a ruling in 2009 following an antitrust complaint by Stephen Oberholtzer had them bundling an an alternative [worsethanfailure.com] to the Windows calculator. By 2014, after the famous Litestep case had Windows presenting the user with a choice of window managers on first boot, some have said this step was inevitable.

Asked whether there was any truth in the rumours that Richard Stallman was secretly preparing a dossier to set out the case that Microsoft had failed to offer enough choice to the consumer with regard to product names that feature recursive acronyms and references to Flanders and Swann, he declined to comment.

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.

Re:

[catbutt]

Keep in mind that before Google came in with a powerful search capability, Microsoft didn't have one yet. For all you know, if Google hadn't done one, Microsoft never would have done anything but the piss-poor dog-slow search they had previously. You think the next company will bother, if Microsoft is allowed to continually squash any product it decides it wants to squash?

The world is better with competition whereever competition isn't grossly inefficient. I see no good reason there shouldn't be competi

Re:Wow!

[Chokolad]

> Keep in mind that before Google came in with a powerful search capability, Microsoft didn't have one yet. For all you know, if Google hadn't done one, Microsoft never would have done anything but the piss-poor dog-slow search they had previously. You think the next company will bother, if Microsoft is allowed to continually squash any product it decides it wants to squash?

They actually had a powerful search capability since NT4. It was not well exposed in GUI and was not running by default. It was called Indexing Service. Current Vista Search is modified Indexing Service + GUI. It was even done by the same team.

Re:

[Tim C]

At least since it was almost impossible to find a Linux distro that didn't install find by default, let alone [s]locate.

Of course, it depends on your definition of OS to an extent, but personally mine is a little wider than "kernel and HAL".

Re:

[Tran]

I am not that up on linux, but as posts below indicate, locate only finds filenames, not file contents.
I suppose it is a step up form find, since it appears to maintain an index file.
But find is not a service constantly running as a service as I suppose locate would be. And DOS and windows also (have) come with a close equivalent of find, though not as flexible. The dir command works wonders in that respect.
No the desktop search is something completely different. It is not just a command line utiltiy. I

Re:

[chubba27]

Does anybody actually read these, or just start bashing? Microsoft does not *prevent* anyone from adding a different desktop search. They have not "added locks to the fridge" so that you can't add Pepsi. They've just made it so that you have to bring in your own Pepsi and stock it yourself. If you're too lazy to do that, that's your problem. You have that choice. If you went into a Chevy dealership and bought a Corvette and then told them that you wanted a Ferrari engine instead of the Chevy engine, do

Re:I think the problem is WHY they're doing things

[drsmithy]

Well, that's not ALL we're talking about. Remember, this was an MS-made replacement for Google's desktop search and Microsoft only made it AFTER seeing Google's product, at which point they merged it into Windows at a fairly deep level.

Rubbish. Microsoft first said Vista (Longhorn at the time) would have "Desktop Search" a year before before Google's first GD beta (and two years before Apple released Spotlight). Further, they'd been talking about the broad concept since at least the mid 90s.

In other words, I don't really care what they put into their OS, but WHY they put it in there: to kill off competitors (Google) and their products.

The idea that it was a "response" to Google's product (and hence some deliberate, targeted attack), doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Re:

[mi]

why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?

Because Apple is not a monopoly. A lot of normally legal things become illegal, when you gain over 90% of market share...

That said, I wonder, if Microsoft's fixing their own bugs is Ok... In particular, when the bug-fixing drives someone out of business... Their introduction of IE (which killed Netscape) was a feature-addition. Well, one's missing feature is another's bug...

Re:

[misleb]

well do you really expect anyone to integrate a third party search into their OS?
why dont people sue apple for Spotlight?

I guess having so many developers making third party software for your OS is a double edged sword. At some point Microsoft got so many people augmenting the OS that they could barely make an improvement or add a feature without putting someone out of business (ok, Google isn't going to go out of business over this, but the point is still valid).

One of the many things I don't like about

Re:

[stratjakt]

Who else sells OSX supported hardware then?

Sounds like a monopoly control to me, just a REALLY TINY one.

Re:Wow!..Not so much

[mhall119]

"OSX supported hardware" is not a market, it's a product. You can legally have a monopoly on a product (patent, copyright, trademark), but you can not (unless otherwise specified) have and use a monopoly on a market (Desktop computing) to give you an unfair advantage in another market (Internet Search).

Here Microsoft is using their Desktop monopoly to boost their online search business and (this is the illegal part) restricting their monopoly product from using someone else's online search business.

Re:

[HellFeuer]

why the hate?
do u think saying fuck a few times will prove u correct?

MS bashing is fun, but do realize, that the line between added application and OS feature, is really not that clear cut. i could take things to their logical extreme and argue that everything other than the kernel is not part of the OS.. of course i would be wrong, but the point is, "this is an OS feature, not an application" can sometimes be a very valid argument..

my point about spotlight was this: spotlight and the vista search ar

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Well, I suppose you can argue that Solitaire is a part of the operating system if you want. Microsoft has long tried to muddy the waters here, and has never had a problem outright lying when it suited their purposes.

Re:

[ozmanjusri]

MS bashing is fun, but do realize, that the line between added application and OS feature, is really not that clear cut.

It is clear cut in this case.

MS didn't provide this feature in their OS.

Admittedly, they should have done so decades ago, but they didn't need to because they have a monopoly, and developing features for customers costs money. Instead, third parties, including Google, invested time and effort to provide the feature to Microsoft vict\\\\ customers, and by doing so added value to the W

Re:

[drsmithy]

MS didn't provide this feature in their OS.

Microsoft have been providing some form of search in their OS since at least Windows 95. Since DOS 1.0, if you consider dir [/s] *file* a "search" (and given how many people seem to consider find / -name "*file" a "search", that's not unreasonable).

The indexing searching of Vista is a clear and predictable evolution of functionality that's been present in Windows since before Google even existed.

Admittedly, they should have done so decades ago, but they didn'

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I don't give a damn what Apple does. They're influence on the market is next to insignificant. I don't use Apple hardware or operating systems on a regular basis. Apple could shut down tomorrow and it would adversely effect less than 10% of all PC users out there.

Re:

[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.

Let me guess...

[Penguinisto]

...they'll make the same changes that they did when ordered to remove IE from Windows 95?

( "what? We did it because we were told to! Not our fault your desktop is all broke now!" )

Okay, so prolly not like that. But seriously; they could've avoided the bad PR by just responding to a quiet request in the first place, instead of being pushed into it... as usual.

I realize there's prolly some sort of 'we only do it when we have to' mentality prevalent in Redmond, but when is someone there going to realize that maybe, you know, they can take a chance and do The Right Thing - when the asking is being done quietly and politely, and not finally and grudgingly do it later when there's a big fat lawsuit or four hanging over their heads?

I know, I know... but I still have some small bit of dreamer left in me.

/P

Re:

[Locutus]

what pisses me off is that once again, Microsoft designed Windows to damage competing tech/products, they went outside the settlement, the DOJ knew of this before Vista shipped, Vista was allowed to ship, the Bush run DOJ sided with Microsoft, the Bush run DOJ sent out memo's to stage AG's telling them not to bother with Google regarding this, and the settlement of this issue is, Microsft, 'we'll fix it sometime soon'.

Talk about being given the red carpet treatment. This company is given a PASS at every tur

Re:Let me guess...

[Achromatic1978]

To damage competing tech/ products? Huh? The product was easily disabled. Google's complaint, as it is, was that it "wasn't easily disabled enough" (not sure what they were looking for, a Big Red Button on the desktop, or more likely, something that sits in the bowels of Add / Remove Windows Components, not installed by default, so people think that functionality is missing from Windows, and so download GDS) and that it "slowed GDS down" (well, yes, two programs indexing the hard drive will have to share access to it. I'm confused as to why this is MS's problem - you'll note that Windows Desktop Search is equally impaired - actually, even less, because it yields to everything including GDS, whereas GDS won't yield to Windows Desktop Search - this is a fairly understandable concept) - again, not sure what Google's preferred course was for MS, "invent a hard drive indexing routine that doesn't need to read the hard drive" (now that WOULD be innovation).

This is one I'm disappointed MS caved on. Google is doing little more than using the court to proactively hurt competitors, something most people here are usually against.

Re:

[Locutus]

Desktop search is not new, yet Microsoft did not allow for a preferred search facility which disabled their builtin search. That is wrong because Microsoft has a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Had there been no other company doing desktop search they probably could have continued to bury the disable button(s) until someone else wanted access to the system. Again, this is because they have a monopoly and US laws prevent companies with a monopoly from blocking or harming competition. They must all competi

Re:

[Reckless Visionary]

Quit calling me IMO. Thanks.

Re:

[Locutus]

That's just YFO. ;-)

LoB

Re:Let me guess...

[Achromatic1978]

Desktop search is not new, yet Microsoft did not allow for a preferred search facility which disabled their builtin search.

Any application installer can disable the builtin search. This was discussed extensively previously - "GDS has noted that Indexing Service is on, and this will hamper performance. Would you like to disable?" Seems pretty straightforward. After all, the hooks to disable Indexing Service are publicly available and work.

Or should the WDS facility seek out other Desktop Search apps and disable itself if it finds something running? No. If you mean "Search" on the Start Menu, that's fairly encroaching. What next? Should the entirety of the OS be extensible? (Well, it should, but you know what I mean) Should there be an integral API allowing anyone to hook anything into anything? Filesystem? Maybe a competitor could release a new kernel for Vista, should that be allowed to hook into the UI?

They must all competitors to compete.

Show me how GDS is prevented from running? Oh, it's impeded from running at full performance? Guess what, so is Indexing Service. GDS is a user's choice to install? Guess what, the user can also uninstall Indexing Service. That Google have chosen to seek (questionable) legal redress for what is clearly a simple issue to resolve (and one that DEFINITELY would have come up in any usability testing) speaks volumes.

To me, it only looks like it's forcing Microsoft to obey anti-trust laws and provide a means for competitors to play in the desktop search market instead of harming others by making it look like the competitors software is massively slowing down the OS by having two indexing systems.

FUD. For one, it doesn't slow down the OS per se. It slows down the indexing system of two separate applications. GDS and Indexing Service. MS isn't spinning it to say "GDS is slowing down your OS, get rid of it". It's simple resourcing.

IMO, Microsoft should be required to take Vista off the market until this is fixed. They are doing exactly what they've done for years in regards to harming competition on the Windows OS monopoly and they are currently still under sanctions from previous illegal anti-trust actions.

Off the market? Pardon me while I cry with laughter. Harming competition? I guess you mean by putting in an unremovable, un-disable-able indexing service that slows down a competitors desktop search app. Except, what's that, oh, yes, it IS removable, by USER or by EXPOSED API. And it is disable-able, by USER or by EXPOSED API. Remind me again how you think this should be dealt with.

Re:

[jellomizer]

Good point. Microsoft can't (doesnt want to) afford to go threw that again. It is easier to give google the search bar for the few who want to use it. Then go threw a huge lawsuit with company over company for years for a relitivly minor feature. The browser wars cost microsoft a lot to win the war and after then won they didn't get much from it. Except for a bunch of security problems because hackers figured that there would be a good chance that people will be using IE. Forcing to put away the Microsoft

Re:

[Pharmboy]

I would argue they CAN afford to, it will generate more income than the lawsuit will cost, and at the end, their only punishment would be to promise not to do it again. There must be another reason they are backing up on it.

Re:

[mhall119]

On the contrary, every example you gave was profitable to Microsoft in the long run.

If IE had not become the dominant browser, nobody would have used ActiveX. If nobody used ActiveX, few people would have used Developer Studio, fewer people would have used ASP and, if few people used ASP, fewer would have used IIS and Windows servers.

If Microsoft had not put Java adoption back 5 years, nobody would have wanted .NET or Developer Studio .NET and, if nobody was programming in .NET, nobody would want to use II

Re:

[weicco]

It's interesting to see what they'll do. There's numerous things to do just the thing Google asked. There's at least 4 different ways to stop Vista's search, all accessible by installer software. There's at least 2 different ways to make queries to Vista's search and a way to plugin 3rd party search agents (I don't think this was requested by Google but some were asking this in the previous Slashdot article).

So unless they remove Vista search alltogether, what's there to do? Tell Google's developers how to

Re:

[jimicus]

Define "The Right Thing".

Microsoft release an OS. There's nothing particularly secret or magical about that; it's fundamental to their business. An OS provides a platform on which to run software, and offers a number of features - because Microsoft's OS is aimed squarely at desktop PCs, it follows the features it provides are aimed squarely at desktop PCs.

Now, what generally happens is that Microsoft release an OS, and over the course of time some companies within the software industry spots what things a

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?

Re:

[MontyApollo]

It is also possible that MS just considers this such a trivial issue that it was easier all the way around just to make the change.

It doesn't really affect MS one way or the other, but I could see it eventually causing problems for some users. Anybody remember trying to help out a friend who let a third party product take over their operating system? Norton. AOL. You get the picture.

49-page?

[BlackCobra43]

That just raises further questions!
1. WHY such an odd (pardon the pun) number of pages?
2. What does it matter? Does anyone think that more pages = better? Did MS' lawyers see the brief and go "Shit guys, it's over 47 pages long. We better settle!"?

Re:

[LMacG]

Well, you see, 49 is a square number, so that makes it good. Plus, it's the square of 7, which is really really good. Not six, seven!

Seven chipmunks, twirling on a branch
Eating lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch.

You know. That old children's tale. From. The sea?

Re:

[theantipop]

This, in turn, poses a whole new breed of questions. Can one number be more odd than another odd number?

Re:

[mhall119]

Nah, that would be irrational. :)

Ok, mod me down.

Re:

[griffjon]

I get it! 42 - it's the question for the meaning of LTUaE -- how long must a complaint be for M$ to notice?

Re:

[WarwickRyan]

The first page was the complaint, the remaining 46 pages contained the search history and complete index of every file on the writer's harddrive.

Re:49-page?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"XX-page document" is reporter code for "so long I feel justified not having read it."

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.

Re:

[Dan Ost]

Google, at least as far as I'm aware, competes on merits.

Are there any counter examples that I should be aware of?

Re:

[Jeff Hornby]

Yes, they have a monopoly on Slashdot fanboys

Re:

[gad_zuki!]

>competes on merits.

Right, by paying firefox (and others) to default to google search. The end users don't choose based on merits, companies who take their money make the choices.

Lets not pretend google isnt the same as any big company. They are.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

YouTube

Re:

[Frosty Piss]

I am more concerned about Google throttling competition than MS.

I'm more worried about Google abusing my personal information than M$. Google has a proven track record in this area.

Re:

[misleb]

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.

I'm more concerned about getting an OS that is more functional out of the box. It is about time MS got a useful, fast, and simple desktop search like Spotlight on OS X. Not that I would actually USE Windows even if it had good search, but still... I expect my OS of choice to keep up with modern f

Sadly this so far means nothing...

[RobertM1968]

Contrary to the title of the article...

Microsoft To Change Desktop Search After Google Complaint

...MS hasnt agreed to do anything...

However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said in an interview last week that the company was willing to make changes if necessary.

(Micorsoft,) Please define "if necessary"... is it:

• If Google continues their anti-trust case?
• If enough end-users complain
• If they are forced to because of the results of the anti-trust case
• If BillG feels "charitable" towards his competition

Until such a definition is announced by MS, this statement doesnt mean much of anything - except perhaps as an attempt to make the general public think they are addressing the issue of choice on the public's behalf (as most of the general public will probably read into their statement in the same way that happened when the article title was created).

Just my thoughts on the matter...

-Robert

Re:

[atarione]

i think you read the article wrong. last week they said they would make changes if necessary this week they said they would make changes

Re:

[Red Flayer]

i think you read the article wrong.

Whoa, back up there, killer!

That's an awfully big assumption to make, that someone actually read the article.

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?

Re:

[Mr 44]

Well, you are glossing over an important distinction:

Competitors had complained that Microsoft had secret "hooks" in Windows that it used to make its applications perform better.

There's a world of difference between windows adding secret features for office, and an OS feature using functionality thats not exposed.

And, as the other commentor noted, the only slowdown is due to both searches running at once.

Sheep

[wasabii]

Man, ya'll must be sheep. Seriously.

Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.

I find it quite unbelievable some people's feelings of entitlement. No, you are not entitled that somebody provide an OS that does wh

Re:

[yorugua]

Look. MS wrote the OS. MS owns the OS. MS can do whatever they want with it. If that means integrate whatever the **** they want, then piss off. If you don't like it, don't use it. It is not drinking water. Yes, you can live with MS. I don't use Windows, but I will do whatever it takes to make sure MS does not loose this fundamental freedom.

Well..er.. they have that fundamental freedom. But, they happen to be a convicted monopolist too. See, if you are in a position, which derives from you being a monopoly,

Re:

[wasabii]

And I vehemently disagree with that line of thinking. I do not think the government's job is to force people to "play nice". If MS uses it's Windows position to take over the browser market, so be it. Obviously they've done their homework.

Again. If you are discontent with their "world", simply leave. Until it involves drinking water, I will disagree.

Post made from Linux.

Re:

[yorugua]

And I vehemently disagree with that line of thinking. I do not think the government's job is to force people to "play nice". If MS uses it's Windows position to take over the browser market, so be it. Obviously they've done their homework.

The fact is, they can try to take over the browser market, and if fact they did. Fact also is, abusing a monopoly is not only "not playing nice", but against the law. Governments are somehow supposed to have their citizens (both persons and companies) play by rules, have

Re:

[wasabii]

Well, great. All you've done is point out how much our current laws suck, and how they should be removed.

Re:

[yorugua]

"Convicted monopolist". You guys crack me up. That phrase has 0 legal meaning.

First, IANAL.

Second: two things:

a) This link migth help : http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit019.html [aaxnet.com]
Read for example the portion of:

The Court of Appeals judged the case on merit rather than on prejudice. Microsoft lost on every single point. The court held that:

* Microsoft does indeed poses a monopoly.
* Microsoft has leveraged their monopoly in clear violation of the law.

Re:

[Critical Facilities]

You know what? I gotta say I agree with you. I'm no Microsoft fanboi (though I do admit to using it for work, pro audio, etc). I think it's unreasonable to expect that Microsoft should be barred from being able to make their products work better on their operating system. While the practice is unsavory at best, I don't know if I can buy into this "illegal" or "monopoly" thing.

There are loads of things on the market that are proprietary and no one balks at all. Try sticking a Square D circuit breake

Re:

[MightyYar]

GE has no monopoly in electrical panels.
Kwikset has no monopoly in locks.
Chevy has no monopoly in cars.

None of your analogies apply.

Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop. Microsoft competes with Google in a different arena - search. Microsoft cannot use their monopoly on the desktop to gain an advantage over Google in search. To allow this would seriously reduce competition in the marketplace.

A better analogy would be when AT&T ruled phone service, and they would not let you purchase a non-AT&T te

Re:

[Critical Facilities]

I must respectfully disagree with you. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop. My Ubuntu and Fedora installs are proof of that very important fact. Now, I'll agree that Microsoft has done a very good job of aligning itself with various hardware and software vendors/companies, but to make the argument that they are the only option is just a red herring.

I readily admit that I do use Microsoft Windows because frankly, there is not a viable option that I am willing to compromise and use as an

Re:

[MightyYar]

Everyone I know (with a computer) has MS Windows AND MS Office. We ALL have made the same choice as you, "begrudgingly" or not... this makes them an effective monopoly on TWO fronts. Monopoly does not mean that they put a gun to your head, it means that you have no other good choice but to buy from the monopolist.

Your argument is like saying that AT&T was not a monopoly because you could still use shortwave radio, the telegram, CB radios, etc. instead of the telephone, but you begrudgingly made a choice

Re:

[wasabii]

Again, you assert that you are entitled to your ideal choice. This is not true of life.

AT&T: Granted a government contract over the phone lines in your home. The government is then free to adjust the terms of said contract to suit it's needs.
Standard Oil: Walk. Lazy slob.

Re:

[Critical Facilities]

Monopoly does not mean that they put a gun to your head, it means that you have no other good choice but to buy from the monopolist.

No, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that you have no other good choice. A monopoly means that you have absolutely no other choice. See references in this comment [slashdot.org].

Look, I'm not saying Microsoft isn't playing hardball here, I agree, they are definitely the 800lb gorilla here. But for people to cry foul as though they're taking unfair advantage over their presence in the marketplace as though it were just magically handed to them is petty. Like it or not, Microsoft did a f**king great job

Re:

[wasabii]

Your only assertion is that because they are a monopoly, the rules are different. I disagree. And I assert that because AT&T was granted a government contract for the physical lines running into your house, the situation differs, and they should be held accountable to that contract. Which can say whatever the hell it wants, and if my elected representative doesn't enforce the contract, then me and him can have words.

MS has no such contract.

Re:

[MightyYar]

Apple is not a monopoly because the only control 2% of the PC market. In almost every industry, you can safely ignore Apple and suffer not one bit of ill from it. Even with the iPod, they only have about a 75% market share - not a monopoly. If Apple wants to try to give itself an advantage on release of the iPhone by disabling sync with other companies' phones, they can go ahead and do it - you'll just buy a Windows PC.

Microsoft has two monopolies - they are the de-facto standard for desktop computers and f

Re:

[wasabii]

>> Good luck trying to run a sizable business with no ability to read Office files. Even job hunting is difficult without a resume in Word format.

Once again, I disagree it is the governments job to make sure you can run your business... except for maybe in the case of a hurricane or flood. Office documents? Bah.

Re:

[wasabii]

I still don't agree. If MS wants to put code into their OS to make my software suck, I see that as a reason to not use their OS. Simple as that. If other people don't agree, then it's my job to convince them.

Re:

[Critical Facilities]

That's true:

From Merriam-Webster:
Monopoly [merriam-webster.com] :
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly

Proprietary [merriam-webster.com] :
Etymology: Middle English propietarie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin propietarius, from Late Latin, adjective
1 : one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to somet

Re:

[wasabii]

I am. And I completely disagree with them, and if asked to vote on it, I would vote against making monopolies illegal. Again, except where the threat of violence exists. But that's sort of seperate law.

Re:Sheep

[yorugua]

There is no law prohibiting a monopoly.

There are laws prohibiting from abusing a monopoly. I guess that's the case here.

Re:

[wasabii]

The article you referenced in no way explained why the government should ensure that I am able to keep my job. It simply pointed out that markets are not always optimal. I see them as two different things. Markets. Government. Perhaps that's because I lean towards the libertarian.

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:

[Vancorps]

huh? Last I checked it had the lowest priority and consumed only a max amount of memory, about 30megs worth, it would continue at that pace as long as there was no user activity for five minutes. It doesn't move other apps out of memory or even move them into virtual memory, if the app in question is actually doing something then the indexing service won't run. If the app is question is sitting idle then it has already been moved to virtual memory.

If you install it on an existing machine with lots and lots

Re:

[rrohbeck]

If I leave my machine for some time and try to get back to a running decent-size app like Outlook or Firefox, it takes about 30 seconds of paging until they are responsive. This does not happen when WDS is disabled or on Snooze.
I guess it depends a lot on how much you're indexing. My Indexing Status shows "Items indexed so far: 2,135,782."

Re:

[wasabii]

The problem is it evicts the old program's relavent disk cache. FOr instance, Outlook has your PST file open. But its' not actually doing anything with it. It's not loaded into memory. It is part of the disk cache. The disk cache gets dumped basically in FIFO order. The oldest page gets evicted to map a newer page in.

The WDS reads every file on the system. It may immediately discard the data it reads, but the disk pages do get read into the cache, and evict the oldest. If it runs through 16 GB of files, and

Wimpy Google Cries to Lawyers

[tjstork]

Cheering for either company is ridiculous. So Bill Gates has a few more billions than Sergei and Larry, but so what. It's not like any of us have our own private 737 to fly around in.

I like an OS to come with more stuff out of the box with every release. It's just less complicated to put in one CD and get everything - that's why I like Linux and OS/X. People have a right to make their products, however they want them. It sucks to bolt rear views on a car after the fact, and it sucks to go and download

Way to go Google.

[JustNiz]

You know you're big when Microsoft becomes your bitch.
No but seriously, they'd just steamroller anyone else.

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

Desktop search is a name for a program that constantly indexes your hard drive so the results come up instantly when you search for a file. Examples include Google Desktop Search (Win/Mac), Vista Desktop Search (Win), Spotlight (Mac) and Beagle (Lin)

Re:

[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

KDE Find.

[twitter]

As practical as locate is, it only matches your search to the list of names in the database; I cannot search for a document containing some word. ... I can teach my father how to use Beagle. I cannot teach him how to grep.

There are dozens of GUI front ends to grep that deliver most of the functionality. One of the easiest to use is the KDE find utility, which can search by content, file dates and all of that. Used in conjunction with a reasonable directory structure, you can get most of the benefits of

Re:

[Constantine XVI]

a) The fact that it's called Desktop Search implies that it's directed at Joe User, who doesn't want to be anywhere near *sh
b) locate ain't exactly instant, it doesn't pull metadata, etc...

Re:

[My name is Bucket]

"Desktop Search" is what you turn off to gain HDD access speed, because you actively organize your personal files (unlike other schmucks).

Re:

[MightyYar]

Que? Why? What's wrong with dumping all of your documents in "My Documents". Can't Windows handle that? I mean, if you have a little OCD and have the need to put all of your files into neat little folders, that is fine. But for the rest of us, saving into one big folder is just peachy as long as the OS can handle it. I do sort mine into business and personal folders, but that is about the extent of my filing. If I have a big project, it gets a folder as well.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Disabling the service does not disable it for all of Vista. If you read the original complaint, that was a major issue -- some actions would still call the MS Search instead of whatever other search tool the user wanted.

Use the API? Are you certain that the API provided by MS to third-party developers is the same as the one used my MS's search? As other posters have pointed out, this has been a problem in the past with MS.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Red Flayer]

If you're so concerned about the API, you don't have to use it. Just use net stop.

Yeah, works for me (if I used Vista on any of my production machines). But what about the 99.99% of users who are incapable of doing something as complicated as net stop? They are really who this is about, after all.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Red Flayer]

Gee, you didn't notice that Vista overrode the user selection of GDS and executed searches using MS's search instead? This was a prime issue in the original complaint.

I think you misunderstand the whole concept of abusing a monopoly -- most users will take the path of least resistance, and having to jump through even just two hoops is too much.

How hard was it for users to use netscape instead of IE for browsing? Pretty easy, yet the antitrust suit still stuck.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[rrohbeck]

If Google hadn't raised tons of privacy/confidentiality concerns by sending index info across the Net, GDS would be the standard these days. They had a huge head start and blew it.

Re:Why don't they file against Apple?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why don't they file against Apple? I mean, they have Spotlight and that's Apple-only and bundled, right?

Who the hell modded this "insightful?" First, Apple is not a monopoly, so they cannot illegally leverage that monopoly via bundling, hence there is no legal action that makes sense. Second, Google was not even complaining about the bundling (although they have every right to). They complained about two things:

• MS's search feature slows down other search features.
• MS's search feature uses undocumented APIs that provide an unfair advantage to competitors who don't happen to also have the source code and documentation to Windows.

Apple fits into neither of those categories. Google has an indexed search on OS X and it uses the same API and hooks as Spotlight, resulting in no slowdowns for Google's tool and no disadvantage given to them.

Are those enough reasons? If not, please RTFA before posting again.

Re:

[tknd]

Google can be my default desktop search when they stop integrating advertisements in the web search engine or they allow other competitors to advertise free of cost on their web search results page. Until then, sorry Google, you're just as evil as MS.

Re:

[suv4x4]

Who the hell modded this "insightful?" First, Apple is not a monopoly, so they cannot illegally leverage that monopoly via bundling, hence there is no legal action that makes sense.

Ok who the hell modded this "informative"... Of course, you do realize that Apple has a complete monopoly on software, bundling AND hardware in its own niche, never mind of the law is shortsighted enough to miss that.

Apple users use anything Steve feeds them and Apple's solution is far more locked down than Windows ever was.

Re:

[suv4x4]

Apple fits into neither of those categories. Google has an indexed search on OS X and it uses the same API and hooks as Spotlight, resulting in no slowdowns for Google's tool and no disadvantage given to them.

Apple works tightly with Google, so that's given. I want to know: how I set Live.com as the search engine in Safari?