Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Operating Systems Software Windows

Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough 282

Posted by CowboyNeal from the meeting-demands dept.
akkarin writes "Following Google's complaint to Microsoft regarding Vista's 'desktop search,' Google claims that Vista's search has not changed enough: 'Google said yesterday that the remedies don't go far enough. Google chief legal officer David Drummond said in a statement, "We are pleased that as a result of Google's request that the consent decree be enforced, the Department of Justice and state attorneys general have required Microsoft to make changes to Vista."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough More

Google Says Vista Search Changes Not Enough

Comments Filter:

  • not component based? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by flukus ( 1094975 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:46PM (#19602815)
    Is it really that hard to make an open api with replaceable components. That way google could just plug in their search and have it open to the whole os. MS still seems to be stuck in the monolithic, tightly coupled programming era.

    • Re:not component based? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shippy ( 123643 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:59PM (#19602925)
      Yes, actually it is really hard if you want it to be reliable, well documented, etc. Usually why APIs stay closed is because they don't meet the bar of documentation quality and in order to use it you have to overcome several idiosyncracies and have tight communication with the team that wrote the API. Probably MS didn't have enough time to make it as extensible and documented as they would've liked and maybe they figured it's just file search so keep it closed and avoid the support can of worms you would have to deal with when you open an API that isn't ready for the increased traffic.

      • Re:not component based? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by catbutt ( 469582 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:46PM (#19603351)
        Well, it sucks to be them.

        The monopoly they have has made them incredibly, incredibly rich. With it comes a cost. Things like this.

        In my opinion, de facto-standard operating systems are no different than phone companies -- they tend to be natural network monopolies. It is in everyone's interest to have them open and modular so that there is competition for everything practicable. Web browsers, media players, search utilities. Just about everything but the kernel.

        I guess I am the only one here wishing the government was even more aggressively leveling the playing field.

        Google may be big and powerful, but they don't have a network monopoly....in almost everything they do, they compete on their merits, not on their network advantage. That is a very important difference.

    • Re:not component based? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:46PM (#19603365)
      No. Google is stuck in the, "We can force MS to ask their users to install our software in place of theirs because MS is still percieved as a monopoly" mode. Let's see Adobe publish open APIs for their entire Creative Suite. Let's see the Mac OS publish open APIs for their entire OS.

      The idea that Google is still an underdog to MS is pure fantasy. But Google's gonna milk the perception for all it's worth.

  • They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Osty ( 16825 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:48PM (#19602839)

    Where were they during the 5 years of Vista's development? Microsoft was touting the integrated, universal search abilities pretty much since day 1 of Vista development. There's no excuse for Google not to know about this, since there were preview and beta builds of Vista available for nearly two years prior to release. If they had a problem with this feature, they should've brought it up then, not 5 months after Vista shipped.

    • Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:10PM (#19603037)
      Of course they knew about it, everyone did. This is nothing more than free PR at Microsoft's expense, which isn't hard. It may be true that Microsoft has no one to blame but themselves, but this is just two mega-huge faceless corporations working the press.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )
        To be more accurate this free PR at M$'s expense seems to have turned around and bitten goggle on the arse, hard disk search, and file indexing is seen pretty much as normal part of an OS, if you do a lot of disk searching you enable it, if you don't you disable it and you use those resources for other applications.

        Google is a web search engines, that keeps track of your searches, it is an email service that data mines your email, it is a micropayment service that tracks your payments, it is an advertisin

    • Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:20PM (#19603131)
      In google's defense, they had no idea that Vista would actually be released in '06.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Prof.Phreak ( 584152 )
      Why is this such a big deal? Does Vista prevent 3rd party apps from opening files and reading contents? Or start/stop system services? I really don't see what the big deal is.

      As for integrating 3rd party program into the `os search' feature, that's not MS's responsibility---Google isn't paying Microsoft's developers to make such integration possible.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by 75th Trombone ( 581309 )
      As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

      But I may just be getting that from random ignorant Slashdot comments that don't know what they're talking about, so y'know.

      (captcha: "proviso")

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        As I understand it, their main complaint is that Vista search uses undocumented APIs to get a performance boost, which they're claiming is an unfair, monopolistic advantage. And one that they wouldn't necessarily have known for sure about until Vista's release.

        With two years worth of betas and previews, it's rather difficult to claim that "we didn't know it was going to worth that way."

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Second: that the search box does not show Google results even when MS search is turned off. (It reverts to an XP-like slow search instead.)

          No shit. I would expect MS results if I'm using MS's search program. If I wanted to use GDS I would use Google's program.

          Internet Explorer 7 already supports using Google as the search engine for its search box; it's not so weird to think that regular Explorer would allow you to swap in other search engines as well. More to the point, it's not too much to expect for M

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by KlomDark ( 6370 )
              > Next we'll have a company requesting that the TCP/IP stack be replaceable

              Hey, I think you're on to something there! Wouldn't that be cool if we wouldn't have to be forced to use Microsoft's TCP/IP stack? We could replace it with the BSD TCP/IP stack! Oh, wait...

    • Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Justus ( 18814 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:29PM (#19603203)
      My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

      After all, it would be rather simple for Microsoft to say that every feature in Vista was subject to change (which they did say, and did change many features, I might add). Then, after the issue had been dismissed once, Google would have had an even harder time bringing it up again. Now, as to whether or not this is a good move, I'm somewhat split.

      I suspect that Google doesn't want to be the next Netscape and give up their leadership position due to, well, a combination of things, one of which was Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position. I don't necessarily agree with the way they're handling it, but I suppose they've got to spend their lawyer dollars somewhere--at least they're not attacking a random open source project for infringement of some sort.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )

        My guess is that they're complaining about it now because it's a much more convincing (from a legal perspective, anyways) to complain about something that has been or is being done now, rather than something that will/may be done in the future.

        The cynic in me says that it's much more expensive for MS to change the feature now, than it would have been had Google persuaded them to change it while it was still in development.

        I agree with the OP - if you have a problem with a planned software feature, the tim

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 )
      Not only that... but file searching has been a part of windows since the beginning. It has also been a very basic part of all OS's.

      Just because now, search engines are trying to take over the desktop... doesnt mean MS has done anything wrong.

      Google's completely wrong on this, and google's desktop search sucks period. Who the fuck wants to search for files on their pc with that google web ui? Its terrible. MS desktop search is better on XP and Vista.

      Google's not bitching about Apple's search either... so.. F

    • Re:They have a problem with this *now*? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tapo ( 855172 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:37PM (#19603261) Homepage
      Supposedly Google suddenly started complaining about Vista's integrated search four days after Microsoft complained to the FTC about Google's acquisition of Doubleclick. It seems to be a "Oh yeah? Well fuck you!" move.
    • If you look at the original lists of what Vista was supposed to come shipped with and compare that list to what it was actually shipped with, I think you'll see how worthless 'day 1' development features are. One of the major motivators to switch to Vista was their new file system, but as it is we're stuck with NTFS for Windows and a plethora for *NIX.

  • Stop crying about it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gcnaddict ( 841664 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @07:51PM (#19602857)
    "Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"

    Oh good God fuck off already. I hope Microsoft undoes any planned changes just to put Google back into its place. Now they're just whining like babies. It's an operating system. I can understand concerns over Windows Media Player but the file searching mechanism in Vista is almost a necessity when it comes to finding your files. Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?

  • Come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:08PM (#19603013)
    Look, Google, release your own OS already, and shut up. We know you've been working on one.

  • Addendum (Score:2, Funny)

    by mushupork ( 819735 )
    Sec 12 Para 2: "Vista startup sound must now be sound of someone getting spanked."

  • crybaby? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dwater ( 72834 ) on Thursday June 21, 2007 @08:34PM (#19603243)
    Has this tagging thing been opened up again?
    For a while there, the tags almost meant something.
    • Stop crying about the tags.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jZnat ( 793348 ) *
      It's lame tags like these which make it so the useful tags that aren't covered already by the topics (e.g., I don't think there is a PS3 topic yet, so articles about PS3 get tagged PS2 by default which doesn't make sense) don't show up anymore. :(
  • something in the news that Google is doing that is just plain stupid, ethically questionable or outright wrong. From the jacked up toolbar installs, recent privacy concerns, the bush league promotional attempts at EBay's conference, to whining about MS features that were part of the OS's plans since day one. How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin? Surprise Google wants your desktop, they want your eyeballs, they want to pummel you with ads, they want

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 )
      How long will it take before the "Google are the good guy's" sentiment is going to wear thin?

      It has worn thin. We've wised up. We now realize what each and every person is to Google. People and their personal information is nothing more than a way for Google to make money.

      Google uses you. Not the other way around.
  • I am ever so slightly on Google side of this, even though I think installing google is a bad idea, simply because this is another case of MS not providing basic services.

    On Apple, the google toolbar is nothing more than a security and privacy risk, with little extra value. Pop up blocking, ad blocking, search engine choice, system search, are all available on the standard browsers. This situation was only improved when MS let IE lapse and Safari took over the default Mac browser.

    OTOH, MS left basic fu

  • Once again, we have a battle of the titans. Huge monolithic company against huge monolithic company. All altruism aside, the only goal is who can squeeze more out of the customer at the end of the day.

    The one thing I've found fascinating about all of these battles is that for about 15 years now, Microsoft has been one of the titans. Even when they lose, they don't die, which makes me think that damage control is as good as a win, as far as MS is concerned.
  • I am someone appauled that some of you still dont get it. Google's bitching to Redmond is the exact same thing as if they went to Torvalds say "We want in or we cry to Mommy". If you code your own OS, but by George you better not have an integrated file search program or you might find Google knocking down your door. Are YOU obligated to provide Google anything? Of course you are not, and neither should Microsoft.

    Google capitalized on some areas where Microsoft's offerings were lackluster or nonexistent. Th

  • jeez (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VariableGHz ( 1099185 ) <variableghz&gmail,com> on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:25AM (#19605559) Homepage

    Google had argued that it should be possible to disable Vista's search entirely

    I get that Google's peeved and everything -- but since when did it become improper for an OS to index the harddrive? Why should Microsoft allow that to be disabled?! What, then, if GDS is uninstalled later on and Vista search doesn't start back up, for example? It just seems like a basic thing that should be part of an OS.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Close