Microsoft Testing Rival to Google's Start Page

aer0 writes "It looks like Microsoft has quietly put up their version of Google's start page. It's interesting in several ways. First, the layout and use of javascript is strikingly similar to Google's. Second, one of the few major differences is that there is no MS equivalent banner or other flashing indication that it is an MS site."

Research

[alienfluid]

It hasn't been "quietly" put up on the internet - it has been there for a while. MS uses it for testing and research. If you do notice, it is WAY better than Google's start page too - you can actually drag the various sections on the page and place them anywhere on the page. By the way, I mentioned the page before : here [slashdot.org]

Re:Uh...

[aussie_a]

If you like Google's page then this is a typical anti-MS stance and you'll most likely get modded up for it. But there is very little difference between Google's page and MS's. It also is more customisable then Google's (three skins, all very much the same except for a little colour difference).

Re:Slow and not beautiful

[jtwJGuevara]

I hope you are joking. The design clearly imitates http://www.google.com/ig [google.com] and it's not far from being an exact replica, sans coloring and placement modifcations. Why should an experimental site be limited to the generic style of previous sites produced by the same entity (in this case, Microsoft)? To say that its design sucks for that reason is hardly convincing.

Re:Research

[doubleyewdee]

Sorry to hear that. If you wouldn't mind sending feedback you can to [e-mail] [mailto] and let them know what's up. I don't believe (conspiracy theories or otherwise) that it is anyone on the team's intentions to lock out other browsers. Let them know what's up, and I'm sure someone will take a look at this. :)

Re:oooops

[daytrip00]

I can't believe you guys. The lashing start.com has gotten makes slashdotters look like a bunch of immature kiddies. Please! Start.com is an expirimental site mostly made by two people (now 3). If you want to watch a video with the creators, you can go here [msdn.com].

Instead of thoughtful analysis, we get this thought process:

1. OOOH, another Microsoft product to bash!
2. Go to site
3. Look furously for any mistakes or problems no matter how small.
4. Post on slashdot: MICROSOFT SUCKS!!! LINUX RULEZ! We are l33t hax0rs!!!

Come on guys. We can do better.

Re:oooops

[mahdi13]

Have you ever seen a page that is all javascript ever PASS w3c??

Hello world! will fail w3c...

*I* can't believe that so few caught THIS

[WebCowboy]

...at the bottom of the page:

this site is not an officially supported site. it is an incubation experiment and doesn't represent any particular strategy or policy

And you're harping over the nbsp thing? Geeeez man. Shame on the poster for hyping it up so moch too. Sure it is an interesting curiosity in how it copycat's Google, but this start page thingie is basically this:

1. MS gets tax credits for taking on students/interns

2. MS runs out of spots on actual projects so they let the students (probably unpaid interns) fill their time honing development skills doing whatever they want

3. A couple of these interns are Google fans and so use VS.NET to make a copycat site (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery perhaps.

(and possibly in the future)

4. MS likes the idea and either gets their permament, paid staff to add "spit and polish", or they hire the students on contract for a short time to complete the work.

It looks to me to be Microsoft up to the same old tricks [wga.org] they've practised for years. MS is looking for the next "Solitare" that comes from a couple of junior staff/unpaid interns from which they can extract maximum benefits.

BTW--being an "incubator" project I'm sure it hasn't gone through much of a regression test, but according to the lead developer's blog they DID consously put effort into making it "firefox compatible". Curious goal if you ask me--I would've personally set the goal to be "standards compliant" instead. They probably didn't do that because then it wouldn't work well enough with standards-challenged IE.