Rivals torture consumers via Microsoft It looks like you can start thanking Google for making Microsoft's Vista operating system even worse. Microsoft has given in to demands that it afford rivals a more direct path for providing desktop search functions to users via Vista. The concession underscores Microsoft's revulsion for federal regulators. It will cede a …
...an OS provider (that is OPERATING system provider) shouldn't be involved in user level things such as search.
This is why M$ is a convicted monopolist: they leverage their monopolistic position to extend their monopoly to encompass non-OS areas.
An OS provides (should provide) an abstraction of the hardware in a consistent manner. There is no hardware involvement with wordprocessors, spreadsheets, web browsers, data search engines, or the delivery of entertainment.
If the EC or DoJ required M$ isolate the OS from its other areas of interest/business, not only would the monopoly be broken but the rest of M$ would be able to go out there and innovate, without being hamstrung by backwards compatibility with DOS.
"The desktop search function in Vista happens to be one of the best features in the new OS".
I have no idea what i have then because the search feature in MY copy of vista is a total joke! It takes 15 times longer to find what you are looking for then XP.
I have to keep a copy of xp installed on virtualpc with access to my hard drive so that i can find anything. My biggest regret about upgrading to Vista is the fact that the search feature is so COMPLETELY TERRIBLE!!!
Sorry -- you've totally missed the nail on this one. While I agree Microsoft (and Apple, and Sun, etc...) should have a right to do whatever they darn please with their software, OS and otherwise, your entire argument is null and void by the premise that Google Desktop search is broken. It clearly isn't. Period. And shelling out $300 for an OS that *is* broken for its search capabilities is laughable.
Ashlee, honey, sober up after playing the slots before you type up your articles.
Whether or not Google's search functionality is better or worse is beside the point. 1) What Microsoft was doing was illegal. Google just has the clout to make sure they don't get away with; and 2) Users have a right to decide for themselves what search functionality to use. Microsoft should not be deciding this for them.
You said: "Having Google and other sub par competitors throw their search bars at users will only confuse the average PC customer."
So average users will be confused by choice?!?!? Since when should consumers only have one choice? Consumers have a right to have choices to be confused by; it is certainly better than having their decisions made for them by a convicted monopolist.
You mention "foisting". Why is it okay for Microsoft to foist its search tool on users but not okay for other options to be available? Just because a user chooses to use MS's OS doesn't mean they should have all of their other decisions made for them. If a user chooses to use the Google option it can hardly be considered "foisting".
You said: "This is unfair even for a convicted monopolist."
No it's not. They have broken the law in the past and they managed to get away with it. This time they didn't get away with it... thanks to Google.
You said: "The federal Microsoft watch should result in better operating systems. Even the staunchest Microsoft critic can agree to that. So, let Microsoft have a chance at making quality code rather than having rivals add more cruft."
Wrong! The federal Microsoft watch should result in preventing MS from breaking the law. MS has BILLIONS of dollars to spend on getting their software right. If they make a good product then they can spend some of that money making it good. They choose to spend money on cutting out competitors, having BS white papers written, paying bloggers and so-called "journalists" like you to flood the web with FUD like this article. If they spent all that money on development, then they would make money regardless of their competitors. If you make a good product it will sell itself. If you make the best product people will choose you over your competitors and you don't need propaganda, a gigantic marketing budget, government bribes, and all those other dirty tricks to stamp out the competition so people think they only have one choice.
Note to other readers: Microsoft wants to be the only choice. They want to make all of your decisions for you. They want to be in control of you and your machine. But, there are alternative operating systems to choose from that give you choice and control, which are more stable, are free from viruses and spyware and are hackproof. These operating systems in the past were difficult for normal people to use but many of them are now easier than Windows to use. If you haven't heard of them it's because their makers don't waste their time and money on advertising, propaganda, government bribes and dirty tricks; they spend their time and money making their operating systems better for you. Many of these are also free (the companies that make them make money by selling services and doing development for big business but they give the software itself away for free). If you are interested, I recommend Ubuntu.
Your use of dollar signs to spell "MS" is very clever, it is as if you are trying to claim that Microsoft is a for-profit company, and is somehow motivated by profit. Yes, very clever indeed.
The point the article is making is that desktop search IS an OS function, or at least it should be (and has been in the past, for a long time). What would you think if you loaded an OS that had no capability to search for files and directories on the hardware? Would you go happily download whatever search software you want to run, or would you think to yourself that it might be nice if the OS included a search capability so that you didn't have to do that? What about Joe User? What if the average person got their new computer and could not search for anything? Would they even know that they can install a third-party search application, or would they just be irritated at the OS vendor for leaving out that feature?
I don't like the monopoly that Microsoft tried to set up with IE and Office. But searching your computer? Cmon, that is such a simple concept that it should definately be included in the OS installation, even tightly integrated with the OS. Next you're going to say that an OS should not include a calculator or text editor, because that's also userland software, and it's not the responsibility, and there's a monopoly, and waaaaaaaaa!
The fact is the more people who compete for anything produces a better product by competition. If we have a choice we have a choice to choose what we want so they have to provide us with what we want or we choose something else. This isn't going to mess up Vista's search one bit. Just as you can choose multiple search engines for your web browser. Microsoft might try to make it customers suffer to try to prove thier way is better. But in the end competition keeps them creating better and newer ideas. Cause the fact is if they don't and someone else does, I have the ability to choose something i want. I am amazed by all these stories putting down the power of competition. Ever seen how much apple effects windows? You get alot better quality anything cause of competition not the lack of it.
I work in IT support & have had the misfortune to be issued with a Vista PC at work. I don't share your admiration of Vista's search facility. As was custom on my previous XP machine I hit "Windows F" to bring up the search facility, type the desired details into the box & hit enter. What resulted was several hundred entries gleaned not only from the hard drive but also from my Outlook folders which it seemed to deem a legitimate source. There is no way I would recommend any feature of Vista to anyone.
I find both these companies make shite desktop search software, both are slow and clunky, both litter their results with crap.
Microsoft caches locally, Google caches online. In my line of work, Google is absolutely not allowed for this reason alone.
But even if Microsoft produced the best desktop search ever, that still wouldn't mitigate Vista. Vista is just about as bad as an operating system can be. Bloat has reached epic proportions, inefficient use of hardware has been a Microsoft legend for decades, but with Vista they've excelled themselves. They deserve some sort of award just for the innovative methods they've used to slow down hardware and swallow inconceivable amounts of resources.
I guess they were hoping we'd be so distracted by shiny things we wouldn't notice how they nerfed the entire OS.
I never thought I'd say this, in fact I'm almost retching as I speak.. but they've actually produced an OS that makes XP look like a work of genius...
Well that's about it for The Reg, isn't it? I'm, of course referring to the post titled:
"What utter tripe!
"Note to other readers: Microsoft wants to be the only choice
...
there are alternative operating systems to choose from that give you choice and control, ...
"Many of these are also free (the companies that make them make money by selling services and doing development for big business but they give the software itself away for free). If you are interested, I recommend Ubuntu."
When an anonymous poster, perhaps not a Reg regular, feels s/he has to qualify h/er/is comments by advocating, almost evangelically, that there are OSes of freedom out there then obviously the Reg is past coming across as an IT site. It's over, the envelope was pushed to far with irrelevant humour and naughty innuendo. Rather than morn the death of the Reg I suggest it goes all out in an effort to usurp Fark's position. I suggest Hot Topless Chicks On Page 3.
"Vista does not have much going for it. At present, the OS mutilates my dual-core Athlon box from HP. It shuns software such as Adobe's Audition sound package or the even more "Vista-ready" Cubase software. Worst of all, Vista boots slower and slower with every passing day as new applications add to its bloat."
And yet you say that it would be wrong to blame Microsoft if Google desktop doesn't work properly? Vista can't handle it's own bloat, don't blame third-party developers if it doesn't have room for anyone else's software.
That was probably the most infantile, whiny read I think I have ever seen on the reg.
3 points
1) competition is a GOOD thing.
2) learn to use the uninstall function in your control panel (its under uninstall label)
3) If you are sick of vista going slower because of new programs adding to the bloat, then STOP INSTALLING them.
One more thing Please stop...
If I take everything in this article as a fact, here's the problem with it. Right now, MS's search might be better than Google's. But in 5 years, when I'm trying to search my holographic ogg vorbis identity cube, or whatever the cool thing is at the time, I want to be able to switch out MS's search for the new, cool one by yet-to-be determined super hot startup company of 2012.
Its like Internet Explorer. Biggest malware vector in the world, and if you have a Microsoft System that isn't DOS, you can't get rid of it. That's not what I bought Windows for. As a consumer, I want to be able to use the operating system for my benefit, not for the vendor's benefit. If that means mandating that the architecture be modular, so be it -- it's the sane way to design software anyway.
Makes no difference to me, I made the jump to Linux already. Still read articles about Windows though. Old habit, I guess.
I don't usually comment, but this article is wrong.
I have used Vista and the desktop search was useless.
I have used Google desktop search and it was really good. (This was on XP)
I won't detail all the other (numerous) failings of Vista here because I have said them so many times. Suffice to say that Vista is the only reason I am now running Ubuntu as my main OS.
To summarise;
Couldn't play DVDs all the time with Windows media player
Networking was a pain
search was next to useless
Eye candy slowed normal use
Copying was very slow. (I have heard of the bug since but not heard that it has been fixed yet)
Oh and installing was only better than Gentoo. (vista business took 3 days to install properly - I gave up on Gentoo after 2 days)
I don't know what you poor people are all on about.
* You don't need search if you organise your files properly - I don't use either Google or Vista search, I don't need to
* Vista runs at least as fast if not faster than XP on my laptop
* It handles a whole raft of things better (multiple network settings, extra monitor configuration etc) than XP
* I love the Widgets sidebar
* The "Profile" layout (Users folder) is heaps better
And as for Unbuntu, I installed it on my laptop, setting up separate partitions so I could dual boot between Vista and Ubuntu and here's a run down of what happened:
It chose which boot loader I wanted to use for me
It ignored the separate partition with Vista on it and installed itself without the possibility of dual booting
There was no Grub package installed so I could not alter the boot configuration
Then when I restarted my computer the next day, it couldn't load the graphics driver and left me with a lovely command window thinking I would know what to do.
Well screw that! I started again with Vista and guess what?
Everything works! Without a problem.
Go Vista!
I hate a lot of Microsoft's practices but at what point do you stop overcompensating for past injustices? Google can easily install a find in the start menu and override the windows-f for fucks sake. And to claim that microsoft find automtically makes google search slower? how? by constantly running in the background? consumers can turn of ms indexing and google could too if they wanted to.
At what point do you finally say wtf? Technically neworking is not part of n OS so why not sue ms for writing winsock and not telling people how to write replcement stack with the same dll sigs? Or maybe ms needs to allow people to inject code into their currently running dlls? If you want open source run Linux. No one bitches about apple's proprietary DRM. Maybe Google should be forced to display other companies image/newsgroup searches on their results page since they have similar monopoly of the search engine business. Hell their desktop search automatically sets my browser search to google.
If you want to rail on MS for forcing pc manufacturers to use MS then fine. Monopolistic practices. But saying that MS is monopoly because the bundle find or internet exploder is insane. A cup holder is separate product than a car but I can't sue toyota for making it difficult to install aftermarket cupholders. It's a lot easier to install a new browser or find. The reason ms find makes other finds slow is not intentional. It's because ms find is so bloated to begin with.
If I was microsoft I'd just rename find microsoft find and bundle an uninstaller. Sometimes I think they get spanked so hard by the tech community more for their market strength and less for their crap products.
I must be so old fashioned, had no idea. As the years go by I've simply maintained my structure of directories containing squillions of files (all with meaningful file names of course), as a result I've hardly ever had to 'search' for anything. So I couldn't care less if there was no search facility.
I am totally in agreement with David. Microsoft has created the need for search with its moronic "My Documents", "My Pictures", "My Music" 'folders'. Anyone with half a brain ditches that and creates a directory and uses a proper structure. I, too have no problem locating files that I create, or even files that other users have created. Maybe I am showing my age.
But as a suggestion for those who have to, I suspect that if you reverted to 8.3 naming you might find that searching would be faster (since the OS is creating 8.3 pointers in memory "on-the-fly").
> ...an OS provider (that is OPERATING system provider) shouldn't be involved in user level things such as search.
I think you are confusing an Operating System with a Kernel.
Microsoft is an OS provider, not a kernel provider. An Operating System can include anything that's not application specific and still be an OS.
Search is not application specific, as isn't TCP/IP or a browser.
BTW, Desktop Search in vista is easy to disable as is. There's nothing today that prevents you from disabling Vista's DS and installing Google's. The move is about what comes enabled by default.
Since DS is NOT a business for Microsoft, how can you claim that they are "extending" their monopolu to other "businesses".
In 1973:
find -name '*' -exec grep <blah> \1';'
or something like that..
Microsoft have been alleged to have a monopoly for the last 20 years, during which time two competitors have thrived. One is for geeks and the other for metrosexuals.
Leaving Microsoft with the substantial non-geek, non-metrosexual market. If Linux or Apple wanted to broaden their appeal they'd no doubt eat into Microsoft's market share.
I don't get it. Apple kills a small and popular software company by adding Spotlight to Tiger and everyone is happy about this and lauds Apple for it's innovation. MS does the same thing a couple of years later, minus the killing a small company part, and it's the bad guy.
Imagine what MS could do with Vista if it were as free to act as - say - Apple.
"Many people will end up picking a really crappy desktop search tool because HP, Dell or whoever signed a deal with Google or because Google managed to foist its software on consumers via some web delivery mechanism."
Just like many people end up picking a really crappy antivirus package and ISP because...
I'm lost here. Did Ms. Vance expect MS to care about the good of the customer, or the quality of its product presentation in this one instance, and not in those others? The hilarity of that proposition is enough for me. And that's not to mention the fact that so many others have pointed out: that search is not an OS function (and the monopolistic implications of course).
Where do people get the daft idea that desktop search is "only available for Vista?". It's a free download that you can add to Windows XP as well...
While the functionality of desktop search to easily search the contents of documents is a *very* useful one, it's mind-numbinq slowness when doing directory searches and point blank refusing to search anything other than where it's configured to index and has already done so makes it next to useless at times. Want to search your entire hard disk for documents? Then you have to index your entire hard disk, which takes a VERY long time even on a vanilla installation, quite apart from the overhead of the sheer database size and maintaining the index.
Here's an example of speed, searching "c" header files in a an entire source tree for a particular word:
Desktop Search - no go, directory not indexed - use "search companion" instead (yes, that dumbed down dog)
Windows Search - 5 minutes later, 2 matches, still going
Textpad - 20 seconds, 20 matches, all listed ready for viewing
Yes, the above is a simple case but it's an example of how entirely useless the desktop search is if you don't, erm, store EVERYTHING on your desktop / My Documents directory. It also highlights just how pathetically inefficient the traditional desktop search is - I don't remember it being so useless, but it's not beyond MS to "accidently" break something down to make another technology look better...
An Operating system does hardware resource management, Application do the rest. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, they are like a child molester, they don't change. If they had been broken up in the beginning then I would say fine, but because they control both the OS and the applications, then need to be watched.
Um, just so you all know guys, MS came up with the cache desktop search engine before Google or even Apple. Just so happened that Apple released SpotLight before MS. Google just joined the bandwagon and also forced other crap as well (toolbars, changing home page etc.)
MS 'innovated' this, Apple got it to market first, Google jumping on the bandwagon.
So knock the 'original' comments on the head guys.
>> MS 'innovated' this, Apple got it to market first, Google jumping on the bandwagon.
I dunno, the locate and updatedb commands have been all the rage on gnu systems for years and years and I wouldn't bet against one of the other unixes.
As for gui indexed search tool, it's probable that several third parties have invented it first
I use XP, and when I need to search for something, I do a quick Win-E and open the folder the something is supposed to be in and I find it.
No trouble with Vista, I won't ever use it. Searching takes me all of two seconds, every time.
My guess is that there's a lot of people that don't classify their data. I suppose they don't do backups either ?
lets solve this tedium once and for all.
The question, as always, is "what can a vendor bundle with an OS?".
Is Notepad OK? Is a TCP/IP stack OK?, Is a music player OK? Is a GUI OK? A Memory Manager? Paint? Search? PDF writer? Calculator? Virus Scanner? Backup tool? What else???
The answer is to have an agreed and consistent set of utilities and functions that are OK, and allow *EVERY* vendor that ships an OS deliver whatever they want form that list. That list is based on whatever *ANY* vendor is already shipping, added with whatever a vendor adds that no other vendor challenges.
Lets start with Apple. What do they bundle with MacOS?
A music player you say? OK - That's now allowable for ANY OS vendor.
"Search" is either OK for Mac, Linux, etc (and Microsoft) - or it's disallowed for *all* vendors.
Lets have one set of rules, consistently applied.
That makes no sense, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. However, if you do have a monopoly then you are held to higher standards and responsibilities than other companies, one of which is that you are not allowed to abuse your monopoly position to stifle competition.
Microsoft were convicted of *abusing* their monopoly, not of having one.
I suppose Vista search works almost as well as search works in XP... That is if you don't mind Vista grinding away at your hard drive 24-7, in every spare instant, constantly trying to keep its search index at the bleeding edge of currency. I have a single-core Athlon machine with a decent video card, fairly fast HD, and 2GB of RAM... When I boot XP it takes ~15 seconds, then settles down and the drive is quiet. When I boot Ubuntu, it takes a little longer, but rarely needs to even use its swap partition--the drive only is active when you call an app or are actively writing to it. And because it's as unencumbered as it is, it runs FAST. (although I do have to tinker with the video when Ubuntu installs a kernel upgrade--no likey) When I boot Vista, it generally takes around a minute to be usable at all, and constantly fusses and fights like it's trying to calculate the first name of every particle in the universe. Using a 2GB memory stick and 'winboost' speeds it up slightly--like having a tailwind for your Pinto while trying to drive up the side of Everest. And I especially loved it when it told me I had to have permission from 'Everyone' to read files on my FAT32 secondary drive. It's also so amusing when it periodically gives me tips on how to fix the issues that are causing it to run slow... kind of like the person that farts at the dinner table and then points to the person next to them >>> "He did it!"
Perhaps I'll give Vista another go after the first service pack comes out...
The desktop search (or, rather, the "whole-hard-drive-cached-text search", since desktops were rare back then) idea was introduced, at least to me, by a Byte article in the early 80's, complete with a fully working source code implimentation of the indexing and search. I think that claiming Microsoft are the original and Apple jumped on the bandwagon is really straining historical fact. What MS *have* contributed is the ability to so badly organise your files (and programs-see "Start menu") that you really, really need something to tame it. Pity it'll take you three hours to delete that incriminating file once you have found it!
Am I missing something? Did the author of this article really suggest that (if I haven't already purchases the new hardware that Vista requires to run on more comfortably) this magical thing called "Desktop Search" is the reason I should consider making the jump (and financial investment) to Vista?
File name or string searches have been around forever - in Windows 3.1, 95 and so on. In Apple. Unix, Linux, etc. This is laughable.
THIS is your fancy schmancy reason for touting Vista? And touting that the option to CHOOSE your default search engine takes AWAY from Vista?
Google Desktop Search is very highly configurable - when I want to use it I enable it, when I don't want to use it, I don't enable it. But I'm using it on everything from Win98 to XP.
The author gives the nod to Apple for their innovative search options, and alludes to yet another way that Microsoft attempts to convince people that Vista is the next pair of cat's pajamas.
Desktop Search? You've gotta be kidding me. I suppose I should be grateful that Vista doesn't DENY the ability to search for files or information. THAT would be more newsworthy. The author sounds like an absolute Microsoft fan.
As at least one other poster has commented already, I have no idea why everyone finds 'desktop search' utilities so useful.
On my system, even with 250GB drives full of files, I know exactly where everything is because its sensibly organised.(No, there is no 'Z' in organised).
Since everyone is getting so wound up about why desktop search utilities don't work very well - can someone please post a rational explanation of why they are really needed in the first place??
There's nothing stopping Google building and releasing their toolbar for OSX. The Spotlight and metatdata stuff is all exposed in public APIs, and details of how to use those APIs are documented on the Apple developer site (as well as a local copy on any OSX machine that has developer tools installed)
http://developer.apple.com/macosx/spotlight.html
Got a new type of data that you want spotlight to index for you? Hey, you can do that too, there's a whole type of subproject in XCode specifically for that.
Not terribly hard to leverage, really. Or terribly hard to research, if one were a tech journalist.
Many posts here are confusing the search for files (if you can't remember where you left it then it's probably your fault!), and searching for content. I may need to search through hundreds of properly named files in a well structured directory for some information that may appear in several of the files, I just don't know which ones - yes I do need a decent search facility.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
