Microsoft Testing Rival to Google's Start Page 625
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."
oooops (Score:3, Interesting)
for me, the last line on the page:
kind of says it all... In their hurry to rip off the competition, they even forgot a semicolon... Tsk-tsk!
Re:oooops (Score:2)
Re:oooops (Score:2)
Man, we learned that in high school.
Re:oooops (Score:2)
YMMV
SiO2
Re:oooops (Score:2)
- shadowmatter
Re:oooops (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of thoughtful analysis, we get this thought process:
Come
Re:oooops (Score:2)
Didn't have to look furiously at all - that broken   is right there in plain sight, rendered almost immediately as it's plain text. Noticed it right away while waiting for the site to finish loading...
Re:oooops (Score:2)
Funny thing is, up until about a year ago, there were actually news items on
-h-
Re:oooops (Score:2)
all I see is a bunch of insightul discussion about the usefulness of the start.com page... then again I only have half a page of text to scroll through.
it's kinda like usenet that way, nothing taco does ever really 'silences' the idiots... but experienced users can quickly and easily filter out all the useless commentary and only read the useful stuff.
then again, someone has to bother reading through all the junk to bother to moderate it appropriately... oh
Doing better (Score:3, Interesting)
Their Javascript is broken, at least so says Konqueror.
Error: /msncompat.js [start.com]:
http://www.start.com/extern/wsfw/compat/0.072605.0
SyntaxError: Parse error at line 85
Error:
http://www.start.com/extern/wsfw/core/0.072605.1/m sncore.js [start.com]:
TypeError: Value undefined (result of expression window.attachEvent) is not an object. Cannot be called.
Error: http://www.start.com/3/ [start.com]: TypeError:
Undefined value
I'm one of the start.com folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work on start.com and am one of the 3 folks on the team, and wow, I thought for sure we would have been slashdotted before this
I've been seeing a ton of posts about how we copied google. Man you guys are tough! I'm surprised most people think this since they released their page not too long ago and we released our first version back in March. It was March 6th to be exact. I remember the date. It was my birthday
Here's a basic timeline which I also saw posted in another slashdot post somewhere:
- March 6th, http://start.com/1 [start.com]
- April 6th, http://start.com/2 [start.com]
- May 20th(?), google's personalized page
- June 6th, http://start.com/3 [start.com]
We did notice when google shipped their page in May and I have to admit we were like "darn, they have drag/drop before we do" and "man they have a gmail module, we need to get ours working". But honestly in this space we are both sooooo just scratching the surface here and there are a TON of things that can be done. I have 2 whiteboards full of stuff, like our massive todo list and crazy feature ideas. I bet their whiteboards are full too
There is a video of me and one of the other 3 members of the team at http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=9022 9 [msdn.com]. We talk a little bit about the history of start and some of the development. The video is really long, but it's a good glimpse of our culture, how we started, and how we do things on the team.
Now that I look back I remember that we had shipped live to the web in late February, two weeks before we got discovered. The whole effort started back in November. We were doing a series of prototypes to show how the web can actually be fast again. I mean seriously, we have these huge pipes and fast connections and so many people are on broadband, why are we stuck downloading all this unnecessary crap like flash images, unnecessary UI that I'm not interested in, more ad content than content, just to read 3 pages of an article? So we tried some prototypes, showed it to our boss, then found an old unused domain called start.com that MSN owned and thought it would be cool to just put the code out on the web to show our friends. We put it on http://start.com/1 [start.com] to make it not totally obvious, then waited to see how long it would take for someone to stumble across it. It took 2 weeks. I remember the day (remember, it was my birthday!) and coming in to work to find a ton of blog posts all over the blogosphere about it. It was pretty cool. Some guy even made a screencast of it a few days later (the site seems to be down now) in the same style that Jon Udell had done with google maps.
Anyway, sorry about the servers running slow. We're an incubation site and we just migrated onto shiny new hardware a few weeks back and we're still working out the kinks. Tonight Slashdot sent us about 15x the traffic we normally get and we've been having fun watching the servers keep up with the load. Seriously, if you got burned tonight, try it again tomorrow.
I noticed one of the posts mention that we use a cookie. Yeah we do, we use it to index your settings on the back-end. The last thing we wanted to do was slap on a huge LOGIN TO PASSPORT page before you can even do anything since a) our target audience (you guys) would probably thing that was lame and wouldn't even try the site out and b) we use start.com too and *we* think that would be lame. We want peo
Re:oooops (Score:2)
It is interesting to note that at least a couple of months ago I was alerted via google news alerts that
http://boingboing.net/ reported via their stats that Firefox surpasses IE as the top visiting browser.
The very next day I received a google alert advising that start.com was being launched by Microsoft as a beta of the new home page. This has been up for a while at sandbox.msn.com as well.
The thing I found most noticable was that boingboing.net was listed on the st
Re:oooops (Score:2)
Re:oooops (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello world! will fail w3c...
Competitive Awareness (Score:2)
Back to the drawing board. (Score:2)
http://www.start.com/3/ [start.com]
Total Size: 264510 bytes
Connection Rate/Download Time: 56K 54.12 seconds ISDN 128K 17.54 seconds T1 1.44Mbps 2.80 seconds
http://www.google.com/ig [google.com] Total Size: 17999 bytes
Connection Rate/Download Time: 56K 3.59 seconds ISDN 128K 1.10 seconds T1 1.44Mbps 0.10 seconds
I don't know about you, but for me one of the best features for Google is how quickly it loads. For MS to grab my vote they're going
Re:Back to the drawing board. (Score:2)
Could it not also, possibly be because of a well known effect that's named for this very website?
Re:Back to the drawing board. (Score:2)
Re:Back to the drawing board. (Score:2)
If that's your only reason to not use it, I'd wait a few days and try again
Having said that, first time it timed-out. Second time it did it in a comparable speed with Google (if not a bit faster).
Re:Back to the drawing board. (Score:2)
ampersand non breaking space (Score:2)
Why compare to Google (Score:2)
Re:Why compare to Google (Score:2)
Sharepoint (Score:2)
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
Re:Sharepoint (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
MSFT 26.81
It's been a while since I looked at the stocks, but MS is kindof dipping low. Did they just split or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
On the other hand...
GOOG +7.58
MSFT +0.89
Re:Wow (Score:2)
The speculation on Google's stock right now is pretty asinine at the moment. You would have thought "investors" would have learned after the late 90's bubble that no company has unlimited potential. With Google trading at 87.66 times earnings, I'm waiting for the bubble to burst on it too.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
GOOG +7.58
MSFT +0.89 ...is kind of amusing.
That's amusing only if you don't understand percentages. Look at a 1 year chart, that's amusing.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
GOOG $83 billion
MSFT $289 billion
If you want to look at big numbers, look up BRK-A. Warren doesn't see the rationale behind stock splits.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Quoting from:
Google [msn.com]
Market Cap. 83.11 Bil
Tot. Shares Out. 277.8 Mil
Microsoft [msn.com]
Market Cap. 287.1 Bil
Tot. Shares Out. 10.71 Bil
So from that we end up with Microsoft being worth about ~3.4 as much as Google.
With a little more math we predict that if Google had as many outstanding shares a
Looks empty to me (Score:2)
And why, oh, why, does MSN always give me results pages in Spanish? I'm in the UK darn it.
Re:Looks empty to me (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft wrote this? (Score:2)
Aside from the domains and content, the only thing that makes it look like MS designed the page is the fact that it fails the W3C validator [w3.org]. Eve
Re:Microsoft wrote this? (Score:2)
Yea they wrote it. Remember this is just a research project so they can use markup their current shipping client doesn't support. Before actually deploying it they would either change the markup or add what they need to IE. But something like this probably won't go production for a while so it would be daft to limit themselves to what is in their current browser.
Better (Score:2)
cool (Score:2, Informative)
Even if this is Microsoft, competition is always good for us as it tends to make everyone improve.
Research (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Research (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Research (Score:2)
From Opera 8.01 on Suse Linux 9.3, it makes for a rather useless, do-nothing homepage
Re:Research (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Research (Score:2)
The start.com page seems to have been
Re:Research (Score:2)
Google supports this as well.
Re:Research (Score:2)
ALSO, Google's version works with Safari, while the MS version doesn't.
Re:Research (Score:2)
Re:Research (Score:2)
Yeah, the "quietly" qualifier definitely gets abused and misapplied in story blurbs; I see at as part of the slashdot socialization.
Also, I agree that start.com has more functions Google's start page, but in order for it to be "way better", it's going to have to load a lot faster. In my experience, even Yahoo's hefty start page l
Links' targets? (Score:2)
D'oh (Score:2)
Their summaries (beginning of the story) aren't nearly long enough to find out if those are links I want to follow, in general.
It's missing several things... (Score:2)
Slow and not beautiful (Score:2)
The google one is at least in the google design, the MS one is
Re:Slow and not beautiful (Score:3, Insightful)
definitions.microsoft.com (Score:2)
Doesn't work in safari... (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't work in safari... (Score:2)
Error: http://www.start.com/extern/wsfw/compat/0.072605.0
Error: http://www.start.com/extern/wsfw/core/0.072605.1/m sncore.js: TypeError - Value undefined (result of expression window.attachEvent) is not an object. Cannot be called.
Error: http://www.start.com/3/: TypeError - Attempted to access 'Init' property on undefined object (result of expression Msn.Runtime.I
Re:Doesn't work in safari... (Score:2)
To start vs to google (Score:2)
Multiple versions (Score:2)
That should be - Re:Multiple versions (Score:2)
Re:Multiple versions (Score:2)
So the first time I clicked on each of those links the page never changed from "Loading..." underneath the search bar. Eventually they did when I reloaded the page but while these are interesting sites, Google is still much faster. Unless of course, its only the /. effect.
The first two pages have relatively normal search results pages, while the third uses a fancy overlay box thing that is horribly slow and unreliable. The first time I tried searching for linux it just made a box asking "Web News RSS"
Blatant ripoff (Score:2)
(Flattery by imitation?)
Re:Blatant ripoff (Score:2)
(fyi...this page has existed for several years)
Re:Blatant ripoff (Score:2)
Re:Blatant ripoff (Score:2)
And do you know why it hasn't been branded? (Score:2)
That's because the marketing crew hasn't gotten ahold of this service yet. Wait till it gets filtered through the entire MS camp and then we will see where that current minimalistic approach goes.
Third... (Score:2)
If it gets faster... (Score:2)
Registrar for start.com = tucows (Score:2)
My Browser is My Start Page (Score:2)
First thing I do is move away from my homepage, normaly via a search or to a book mark to fark, ars or
Yay, it has the weather on it, I can know what its like outside, no need to look out the window...
I like it! (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:2)
annoying new windows (Score:2)
And we care why? (Score:2)
Re:And we care why? (Score:2)
They *just* changed it! (Score:2)
I tried it - I won't use it again. (Score:2)
Google instantly came up with (oddly) relevant seeming hits.
Microsoft came up with all kinds of stuff - only one had to do with "floating cars" (whatever that means) and most just having to do with "floating"...
So, as usual, next time I have a search (even if it is for random odd words), I will use Google...
I like it more! (Score:2)
bad design mistake (Score:2)
I Haven't Changed (Score:2)
Good Lord... (Score:2)
Can MS do anything original? (Score:2)
Nice layout.... (Score:2)
Pet peeve (Score:2)
Not everyone has 19-year-old eyes that can read big blocks of underlined text, especially low-contrast text. The only skin that doesn't have the underlines is "granite" but the bright blue is even harder to read.
Let the user choose if they want underlines or not. That's why there's a setting for it. (even in IE)
For them to be more like Google (Score:2)
I like MSFT's page better (Score:2)
Interesting url variations (Score:2)
Staff Picks - Slashdot (Score:2)
Boricle
Ahh... (Score:2)
GOOG (Score:2)
almost as if they couldnt help paying homage to the original...
Still trumped. (Score:2)
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:2)
Personally, I quite like it. Yes, it's by *gasp* MS. Yes, it's a blatent rip off of Google's page, which was no doubt inspired\ripped\whatever from some other site. I don't care.
It has lots of features, lots of feeds to choose from, skins, other nice stuff, and it's just starting out. I'm all for MS bashing and I don't really want them to win this 'battle' but if they improve this and make a nice page out of it they probably will, and I may well use it (but not the search part of it, I'll stick to
Re:Microsoft looking to replace Google... (Score:2)
Re:And it's already slashdotted?!? (Score:2)
Utterly hilarious.. (Score:2)
I'm sure it's all the IE specific code, too. Afterall, when it comes to actual standards support we all know that IE comes in dead last.
Original, no; better than Google's ig...yes... (Score:2)
Also, a slightly better looking implementation but that's just my taste of course.
Re:Gates beats again (Score:2)
Re:HTML error (Score:2)