Microsoft agreed Tuesday to make changes to the desktop search feature in Windows Vista in an effort to assuage Google and head off a further antitrust battle with U.S. regulators. Under the agreement, Microsoft will create a mechanism whereby both computer makers and individuals will be able to choose a default desktop search program, much as they can choose a rival browser or media player, even though those technologies are built into Windows.
I can’t see Windows users benefitting from this at all. What a joke Windows has become these days, you can’t even install updates without having functionality removed.
I believe the “changes” are simply APIs to allow 3rd party vendors to switch off Vista’s search entirely, and hook into the search box in the start menu, which Google can’t currently do.
Maybe not that much benefit but at least these complaints are being upheld.
It’s just a pity it’s such a small victory compared to the battles MS win through scare tactics alone.
I can’t see Windows users benefitting from this at all.
Having a choice is bad? Please elaborate.
you can’t even install updates without having functionality removed.
The article mentions nothing about any loss in functionality from this update.
Edited 2007-06-20 10:39
Choice is not bad, when choice is supported in the first place. The fact that Microsoft prevents choice in so many areas is bad. The changes to be made may enable better choice for users, but it just adds to the growing onslaught of software that feels that it can get into your system and change everything to suit them.
That’s the problem with a lot of Windows software that average users have to deal with. How many times have you been annoyed by software that installed unwanted tray icons, shortucts, even Norton’s annoying taskbar toolbar thing, and toolbars in IE, Explorer and everywhere else. Even printer drivers are now installing toolbars in IE/Explorer. I know it annoys the hell out of me when the perfectly good Wireless Zero Configuration service on Windows gets disabled by some natty third party Wireless manager time and time again.
And with these Search changes, everybody else will get in on the act, malware writers included. One problem with Windows is that your system is rarely “yours”. As a power user, I found it a constant battle against software manufacturers, even Microsoft themselves who insisted in spamming my system to hell each new version of MSN. This isn’t good for regular users.
It’s this same arrogance that I have a problem with Safari with Windows. It’s already bad enough that Windows users get Quicktime forced upon them (with a tray icon and mime-type hijacking) when downloading iTunes, now they’ve got to cope with a browser too.
edit: I should add that Spotlight comes with all the right APIs to integrate with and extend it. If you wanted to build a better Spotlight on Mac, you could build it on top of Spotlight itself. You can’t do this with Vista search, ergo Google’s complaint. The reason changing this won’t improve things for users is because of the software hostility mentioned. DaringFireball’s review of Google Desktop for Mac showed the kind of untrustworthy changes to the system the program tries to make, opening potential privacy and security concerns, both of which are not good. I can’t imagine the changes being any less of a concern on Windows especially considering that once or twice before personal data has leaked out of Google Desktop Search due to security problems. When Dell &c. are bundling Google Desktop Search with machines, this isn’t choice, and it’s not better for the consumers.
Edited 2007-06-20 11:00
I tend to disagree, but you may prove me wrong. The MS indexing service was always extensible since the beginning. Any third party vendor could build a plug-in that indexes particular file format, adds a stemmer specific to some language or even adds another “protocol” that allows indexing/searching of objects from external sources. See http://www.ifilter.org, http://www.citeknet.com and MSDN (of course).
filters only expand the existing indexers capabilities.
What google wants to do is replace the indexer entirely.
You can download iTunes without QuickTime.
>You can download iTunes without QuickTime.
No you can’t. And even if you could, it wouldn’t work. iTunes uses Quicktime for everything. iTunes is just a media organiser/player/iPod syncronizer for QuickTime.
Note how iTunes won’t play formats such as .ogg even if you have the right codecs for DirectShow/WMP, but will play such formats if the correct QuickTime extension is installed.
Having a choice is bad? Please elaborate.
Replacing built-in OS functionality with third-party malware (Google’s proposed search function) is not much of a choice. And yet, people who haven’t looked into Google’s history of privacy will use this plugin, giving Google’s software (and thus, Google) more priviledged access to everything on their computer.
Google’s position that it’s in any way harmed by not being allowed to replace built-in system functionality is defeated by the fact that you can access this ‘desktop search’ through a sidebar tool, through their malware browser tool bar, through a systray applet, &c. What more do they want?
Your dislike of Google has nothing to do with the definition of choice.
Google wants to be able to hook into Windows’ search system exactly as the Windows desktop search does. Following this judgement, it looks like they now can.
Your dislike of Google has nothing to do with the definition of choice.
I’m not trying to be anti-choice here. But think about the market: Who will actually be using this?
Google will, because their ability to look into our hard drives will help them rake in advertisement dollars. Yahoo will try, because Yahoo tries to be everything, even if they’re not particularly good at it. Those two will strongly resemble malware, but will at least be quasi-functional. After that, we’ll have dozens of ‘companies’ advertising the exact same functionality (most likely wrappers around Window’s built-in functionality) with the worst kind of malware packaged in with it.
There’s no serious reason to look for third-party search applications anyway. Once you have an interface and a list of results, what more do you need? You’ve either got a functional search algorithm, or you don’t, and Windows comes with a functional search algorithm — as must any serious OS.
There’s really little justification for this change.
Who will actually be using this?
Those people who already use and enjoy Google’s Desktop Search, and want to do the same on Vista when they upgrade. (I’m neither btw)
It’s completely up to the user if they want to subject their data to Google’s eyes (as well as to Microsoft’s eyes already?) – it isn’t some sort of big brother government forcing this onto users, it’s completely optional to install.
This isn’t a judgment, it’s MS deciding to open up the API on it’s own after Google complained. They did this voluntarily.
I was hasty in my wording, yes. Microsoft has decided to make some changes for SP1 which may prevent a judgement, but we’ll see.
This is one case where there shouldn’t be a judgment, seeing as there is nothing stopping you from installing google desktop search, and if google is too incompetent to disable the indexing service, which has been in Windows since at least Windows 2000, I don’t think MS is to blame in this particular case. it’s very easy to disable, see any number of earlier posts in this discussion to find out how.
If I could mod you up any more I would Kroc, you hit the nail right on the head.
…”stop indexing and search related operations” button in Windows and I’ll be satisfied.
I believe the indexing runs as a service. You should be able to go into control panel / admin tools / services and stop the service that way.
There are at least 3 different ways to stop the Indexing service, 2 of which have been there since W2K and 1 of which stops Windows Search Service.
1 right click a drive or folder, properties, disable indexing service.
2 go to CP>Indexing Options> Disable
3 Start>type Services> and disable the Windows search service.
Google and any other 3rd party provider can add this info into their “before you install” FAQ. There’s no reason to force MS to add a 4th yet more obvious way to the batch.
This clearly demonstrates that Google is no longer an innovative independent but a large corporation who uses lawyers, not products, to compete.
Way back in early 2002, Gates told users “where’s my stuff” is the focus of the next OS. Early demos showed pervasive search. We all knew pervasive search was coming. Only Copernic was out then. X1 came out in 2003 and GDS came out in late 2004. It’s not like Konfabulator or screensaver companies who were blindsided when their products were integrated into the OS. With every OS and desktop environment integrating search deep into the UI, this is like standing on the train tracks and complaining when the train hits you.
edited for clarity
Edited 2007-06-20 15:51
Agreed. As long as they’re adding an interface to choose desktop search providers, they might as well toss in an easy-to-reach option to disable desktop search altogether.
Give it to yourself!!!!! That’s why Vlite.net is for remove fat from the windows.
Edited 2007-06-22 05:39
It seems that comments which people agree to are modded up.
Then why can’t comments be modded down if you don’t agree with them?
The mod system on OSNews needs some work.
So we shouldn’t be allowed to agree with you then?
Nope.
I see that it is difficult to make a completely fair mod system, but your first post was the reason I posted my comment.
People modded your comment up not for being insightful but for agreeing with you, I think.
That’s not how the mod system is supposed to work.
Take it or leave it. I still much prefer the OSNews system of everyone modding on a pure point-based system to Slashdot’s convoluted modding system, even if it does result in occasional stupidity. Of course, I’d wager at least half of OSNews users don’t agree with the no-modding-down-unless-it’s-abuse policy. I’m with you on that one.
Usually I’d be annoyed at being modded down but in this case it seems to be me getting my just deserts… ..sigh..
Okay, I got the idea already that it’s funny to mod me down…. Now please stop.
The mod system is fine. If you disagree with someone, then just use the Reply button and state why you don’t agree with the particular comment (and your reply may get modded up). Modding down without giving a reason is beneficial to no one.
It works if you follow the rules. The problem is that functionality isn’t clear or intuitive. Right now the rules say “Adding points means you like it, subtracting points means you think it breaks the rules.”
The problem is that people ALSO subtract points when they don’t like the post. Which makes sense, that is intuitive.
So ideally the “individual appreciation” and “moderator attention required, this post violates the rules” functions would be separated into their own interfaces, rather than just a + and a -.
So ideally the “individual appreciation” and “moderator attention required, this post violates the rules” functions would be separated into their own interfaces, rather than just a + and a -.
Yes, that is how it is supposed to work.
Maybe there should be a “mod vector” with two dimensions: “quality” (relevance, language, attitude, etc) and “agreement”. So, for instance, if you find a smart insight you disagree with, you could give it (+1,-1). Then, when setting your threshold, you can choose “order by quality” or “order by agreement” depending on how you feel today
Looks like someone disagreed with my proposal, so they modded it down. Thanks for supporting my point
Being off-topic is a legitimate reason to mod a post down, and right now, the topic is “Microsoft Agrees to Change Vista Desktop Search.” This sort of thing goes in Conversations, not in the forum for a news item.
EDIT: Spelling.
Edited 2007-06-20 16:39
Meh, too complicated, and besides, I think the quality of most posts is judged in proportion to how much someone agrees with them… there’s really no such thing as an “objective opinion”, and that’s a fact.
You people do realize that the last sentence was meant to be a joke.
“You people do realize that the last sentence was meant to be a joke”
Yep, a popular version of the liar’s paradox
“Meh, too complicated, and besides, I think the quality of most posts is judged in proportion to how much someone agrees with them… there’s really no such thing as an “objective opinion”, and that’s a fact. ;-)”
That’s difficult to know right now, since the current mod system is one-dimensional. I’ve seen quite a few “modding flamethreads”. I think it would be useful if one could mod down articulated FUD on the agreement coordinate, as FUD is often controversial. Anyway, as you don’t agree with me, I’ll mod you down >-(
(not really
)
Okay, I got the idea already that it’s funny to mod me down…. Now please stop.
Remember back when MicroSoft was quietly re-directing searches through their search engine a few years ago (Win 98 days)? I think it was reported in PC Mag. A lot of Yahoo! users thought they were using their favorite search engine, but Microsoft got the credit for the web hits for their advertisers.
I have 2 indexing systems running on my system. The inbuilt Indexing Service and also google desktop service. I would not want one of EITHER on my computer.
Each indexing system is lacking in different areas and I need both running to find what I want.
The Indexing service searches deeper into my files than GDS so frequently I find things towards the end of the document that GDS doesn’t find, and GDS often misses files or doesn’t return a match for content I know is there (indexes are fully built).
GDS has some better features [like searching in my firefox history] that windows doesn’t do.
Having google take over the search box would be awful as I’d miss files it misses.
For google I tap ctrl twice and get it (how hard is that). And for windows I use their search box. Both seperate and both serving a purpose for me.
Choice is good, as long as it lets me use both at the same time.
Edited 2007-06-20 11:28
Are you on Vista? Because otherwise you aren’t using Microsoft’s “desktop search” technology, you’re just using indexing, which is significantly less CPU- and HD-intensive. Now I guess I can imagine, if you have a really powerful system and don’t worry about running your hard drive down or eating up CPU cycles, that you wouldn’t mind having 2 desktop search providers installed. But for the majority of people, it’s probably not the best idea, since it could very likely slow their systems to a crawl.
this is retarded to say the least.
Lets say I create a piece of software and i make it closed source. I dont want feature a or feature b in MY PROGRAM. then comes my friend and demands I remove my search feature. wtf is that? i dont want to remove the search feature. I want it how i made it.
The Justice department maybe right when it comes to Microsoft creating a monopoly and unfair business practices forcing computer makers to distribute windows on their PCs– install windows on your machine or else type thing — however that part is now done with and i think its come to a settlement.
What microsoft does with windows is their choice and google needs to shut the hell up …
if they care so much about their search feature reaching customers then maybe they should implement it in Linux then promote it. that way they’ll create a great, free product and help support Linux — or any other OS they may choose.
I believe they dont want to help linux cause then people would barf at them for not making the desktop search feature (which no one really cares about to start with) open source.
in any case this is all just mumbo jumbo and i pitty microsoft.
Is it me or are they being bullied right now?
“Is it me or are they being bullied right now?”
What goes around comes around.
You are not separating the two.
“The Justice department maybe right when it comes to Microsoft creating a monopoly and unfair business practices forcing computer makers to distribute windows on their PC”
Exactly. And that is point number 1. The second takes point number 1 into consideration and says “Now that they have the entire computer industry by the proverbial short hairs, are they abusing that power?”
And absolutely without a doubt, even by extensive finding of law across several countries to include the USA and EU – the answer is yes. Again and again, year after year.
Making Explorer/IE was arguably the largest and by malware the most painful. Tying MSN, Media Player, and so on into Windows, and making them tie into MS services (msn network, msn.com, MS Media, PlaysForSure, etc) is the on-going and mostly unchallenged continuation of their monopoly rule.
They don’t have to make a good product or service to make it successful or even to crush their competition – they just have to roll it into Windows.
No. As part of what the Justice department said before they basically decided no punishment due to the change of power, was that companies, like Google, needed to complain about these type of issues and Microsoft needed to respond to them. Google was doing what the justice department SAID they should do.
And we also need to remember that Microsoft did NOT pay the consequences for their conviction. They were going to be broken up, but the DOJ was transferred to Bush’s administration during the appeals, and they basically decided to drop the charges at this point.
Its really unusual for the US to flat out REJECT a claim that someone makes, such as the Google one about Microsoft, however it is our current government’s policy to protect Microsoft’s monopoly. Lets hope our next administration goes after them again and does what should have been done 8 years ago.
To be fair for Microsoft shouldn’t Google being going after Apple for Mac OS X Finder, which has built in search also?
I agree with this being dumb. This is almost like saying that Gmail needs to make it optional to have different brands of search engines shift through your mail.
This has been said over and over, but once you have a monopoly the rules change. Gmail doesn’t have a monopoly on web based email. Apple doesn’t have a (desk top computing) monopoly. Microsoft has a desktop OS monopoly. When MS wish to enter a desktop computing market such as desktop search (or media playing or web browsing etc) it has to play by a different set of rules to other parties in the same market because it owns a monopoly on the desktop operating system.
To allow for continued competition on price, quality, service, etc in a market rather than who owns the APIs, MS are required to compete on a level playing field. If not, then there can be no fair competition in the market. Until MS no longer has a monopoly on the desktop OS they will have to play to a slightly different set of rules than their competitors.
I think this is a stupid idea.
First off, you can turn off Vista’s search using APIs, there are some articles that show how to do this.
You can also simply stop the Indexer service.
Since when did Microsoft have to bend over backwards and allow Google to plug things in and out of the Operating System? What problem is there with the two coexisting if one is able to be turned off?
It’s not really a bigger issue now that Microsoft has complied to their stupid demands, but it’s the principal of the matter.
They can complain about silly things like this, and generate an insane amount of FUD while doing it.
Windows Vista’s search was in no way hurting your product, and the changes they’ve made are marginal. All they did was made what you could of previously done work even more integrated.
Personally, I don’t want this extra crap clogging up my Vista PC because Google couldn’t run a few simple API calls from an Installer to turn off Window’s Indexer and then rebuild their own.
Like a poster before said, they both have their ups and down. Previous Windows OSes don’t have this issue, so Google still has a WIDE OPEN MARKET.
People complained when Microsoft didn’t include instant search, now people complain when they do? I just don’t get it.
“Since when did Microsoft have to bend over backwards”
They’re a monopoly, different rules apply.
” and allow Google to plug things in and out of the Operating System? What problem is there with the two coexisting if one is able to be turned off? ”
Since they did it with their email, browser and Java – why shouldn’t they do it with their search index?
Face it, they made their desktop search tool. They failed to get market dominance, then they build it into their OS – tada, classic strategy. They do it all the time. Messenger, Internet Explorer, .NET etc etc.
They could choose to license and use others, but instead they choose to make their own and TIE it to Windows (this is the important bit). Microsoft hates when people make crossplatform stuff, because then they lose licenses.
Of course people will argue that its their OS, they can do what they want. And thats true, but since they’re a monopoly they cant. SkyOS can, BeOS can, Mac OS X. If one of those OS’es ever becomes a monopoly, then they too would get other rules to play by. Competition and a fair playing field.
Windows Vista’s search was in no way hurting your product, and the changes they’ve made are marginal. All they did was made what you could of previously done work even more integrated.
The argument they are putting forth is that MS has the ability to tie into the OS in ways that google cannot, such as the search bar on the start menu for instance. This creates an unfair advantage in google’s eyes.
Personally, I don’t want this extra crap clogging up my Vista PC because Google couldn’t run a few simple API calls from an Installer to turn off Window’s Indexer and then rebuild their own.
So they should have to resort to window hooking and other *hacks* just to have a chance at competing in desktop search?
Windows is more than just some product, its a software platform.
You classify Hacks as a public API? Get a grip.
You classify Hacks as a public API? Get a grip.
So things like the search bar in the vista start menu have a public api interface?
I’m pretty sure thats exactly one of the points that google is raising, it dosen’t have a public api.
If there is no api for it then what is the way to integrate with it?
You end up hooking windows messages and cross process subclassing. You end up with a big hack on your hands.
omg. i believe it’s cool. http://www.prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508
We have Microsoft, now allowing n outside indexing service, which is generally a good thing. The problem is it is Google, who stores your IP and search information and sells it to the highest bidder. Who is to tell they do not gather your information off your computer? I am not saying they do or don’t, but they are in the same league as Microsoft IMO.
koodos to microsoft for this one. this is one they really didnt have to change but they did. weither it be to avoind more anoying crout stuff that they likely would have won anyways, or because they are trying to be less controlling. either way thanks
You are happy family in your home. With strong secure doors and privacy protected by yard/fence. You know every inch in your home and enjoying.
Google comes in..Hey you have mindexed everything in your brain. Not allowed..Let us know what is in your home. Your information about toothpaste, your cloths, food, condoms.. will be stored on our server. If you cant find your toothpaste, ask us, we will tell you in which drawer of your bathroom it is and will show other comparable toothpastes in market also…….
That is what google does, track your morning toothpaste to nighttime condoms….
To be fair for Microsoft shouldn’t Google being going after Apple for Mac OS X Finder, which has built in search also?
I agree with this being dumb. This is almost like saying that Gmail needs to make it optional to have different brands of search engines shift through their mail engine.
Edited 2007-06-20 18:10
“To be fair for Microsoft shouldn’t Google being going after Apple for Mac OS X Finder, which has built in search also?
I agree with this being dumb. This is almost like saying that Gmail needs to make it optional to have different brands of search engines shift through their mail engine.”
To be fair Google is not leveraging their monopoly on their desktop, to monopolize other markets.
Gmail is optional…and you have a choice of many many web email providers, now if hotmail was blocked by google from their search engine that would be a different matter. Although Microsoft did combine outlook with hotmail.
This is almost like saying that Gmail needs to make it optional to have different brands of search engines shift through their mail engine.
Pretty much. It’s also like saying Microsoft should provide APIs for disabling every part of their OS for third-party replacements–and removing Start menu entries and replacing them with third-party programs.
I can’t believe Google would pull something like this, I can’t believe Microsoft would bow into it without legal pressure. This whole thing is pretty absurd. I’ve been called an “anti-Microsoft drone” a lot of times, but this is one instance where I side with them.
Edited 2007-06-20 18:34
This article and comments leave me wondering: What is the definition of an OS? Is Vista so expensive because of all of the “free” features that come with it? What would Vista cost to develop if MS simply focussed on the OS fundamentals and left it to other groups (even departments inside its own organization) to develop add-ons (for free or at cost) that already come included in Vista. That way, folks could pay what they want/need and seek out the best options for other features, e.g., browser, search, image editing, music and video, etc.
When one pays for Vista and then desires choice, you still pay for the MS version. So, my point is this, even if they bow to pressure, the inclusion as part of the OS and cost of the product is unfair. MS still get their way, even when it seems like they lose (by yielding to Google’s argument).
offer a Google desktop search instead of Spotlight?
So do Apple have to do this too? Or is it just Google being difficult for Microsoft?
MS search is really not terribly impressive right now. It could be alot faster then it is, and just adding search boxes everywhere is only the first step in what can be done to leverage this kind of technology on the desktop (IMHO, kde-nepomuk seems to be the most advanced users of db searching so far, but even they are just scratching the surface)
If MS drops the ball on this and google wants to pick it up, it will definately be embarassing to MS. For the same reasons, if on an equal playing field Google only offers the garbage they did on XP with GDS, it will be egg on their face. Some healthy competition could do alot of good for the end user.
That being said, I’m pretty sure with a bit of work, google could have hooked into the various search boxes without that much difficulty. And as has been mentioned numerous times, Windows Search is quite easy to turn off. IMHO, this was a frivilous lawsuit that google never really intended to win in the first place, but now that they have, they will need to actually make a good product.
Google Desktop Search (GDS) is GARBAGE!