What is Digg?171 Comments
- Sajentine, on 10/11/2007, -17/+138Google has basically turned into Microsoft's mother in law.
She never stops whining and Microsoft is never good enough for her software. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -10/+74Google is scared ***** of Vista's search capabilities, and here's why:
Vista Search (which is about 100 times better than Google's Desktop Search) is only one step away from searching ON THE INTERNET, just as it searches on the desktop now.
If Microsoft gets users used to Vista Search, and then makes it easy for people to use that same GUI to search the internet, Google is suddenly out of business overnight.
Google's popularity right now is based largely on momentum and the "fad" of using its name as a verb. Yahoo's search, for example, is pretty damn near as good as Google's. Since Google's entire business model of search supremecy relies on user laziness and momentum (like most monopolies that aren't enforced by governments like utilities, etc) then their ultimate worry is that Microsoft will incorporate search directly into the OS which will be the ultimate "lazy" option for users.
Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar? Why do you think Google pays dell 5 dollars for each install of Google toolbar that ships with all Dell computers? Because Google knows that the way to keep their search monopoly is to make it so the user doesn't even HAVE to make a choice of search engine- it will be there in their face when they update Acrobat or buy a new Dell or download Firefox.
But if Microsoft can make it even EASIER for people not to even need a concept of a third party search engine, then Google is finished.
This is why Google will fight this battle to the very end- they will spend every penny in their coffers to try and stop microsoft from getting users to stop thinking of search as a "site you go to" rather than something that is just built into the OS. I mean literally- Google has absolutely nothing to lose by spending every penny they have to fight this- because if they lose, then the company might as well fold up shop and go home. - gcnaddict, on 10/11/2007, -11/+71"Google says Vista Search Changes not Enough"
Oh good God ***** 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? - TheSabre, on 10/11/2007, -7/+55What about Spotlight in OS X? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no simple one-click way to disable that either. As far as I know, the only way to disable Spotlight is to go into some config files and hack around to make it not turn on at boot time.
Microsoft has every right to make their search tool un-disable-able (whatever the correct word to use there is...) in their own OS. In fact, Google should be lucky that Microsoft even allows them to INSTALL their apps in Windows. If Google doesn't like it, then let Google distribute their own OS with their tools included.
I wonder how you'd all react if you had an application that other people continually forced you to change because they didn't like how it worked. Why doesn't Linux and OS X support .exe files outside of crappy applications like WINE? If I buy a Mac, can I sue Apple because they don't support my programs that run on Windows? If I install Linux, can I sue the kernel developers because they didn't build in support for my mainframe applications? - 1jaxstate1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+51So why can't I change my search engine in Camino and Safari.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/11/2007, -15/+60STFU Google please you're starting to become a naggin bytch
- wastern, on 10/11/2007, -6/+49This is bull ***** on Google's part. The filled a need in the desktop space in XP, but that need is no longer there in Vista, get over it. An integrated search is better for the consumers then a 3rd party plug-in
I can't imagine what would happen if Google tried to step in on Apple and get them to remove Spotlight
I really start to not like Google when stuff like this comes out. Yes, I want them built into my browser, because frankly, no one does it better, but on the desktop I think the OS vendors can do just as good as Google - joe90210, on 10/11/2007, -6/+46they better not ***** start allowing third-party companies to replace the entire search with their products. I can see it now, Bonzai Buddy Desktop Search, indexes your documents AND uploads the info to their servers for easier convenience!!!
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+43Shutting down Microsoft's search is totally possible. There's a registry key, a group policy setting, or a check box, or hell, just disable the service. It renders some very nice features of explorer (Virtual Folders, for example) completely useless, but it's possible to turn it off completely.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+46Someday MS will do this to Google and all you hippies will spit your lattes all over your parents iMac monitors in disgust.
- jeremymccurdy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+40I still don't get why Microsoft HAS to change it's OS because another company is upset that it's difficult to completely replace a fundamental element of Vista. If google wants it's search in an operating system, they should either shell out the cash to microsoft to have it in or make their own OS.
- TheSabre, on 10/11/2007, -4/+36I want to run Windows Media Player in Solaris. I think I'll go sue Sun for not giving me that capability in their OS.
- TheSabre, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Kinda like how I'd choose to install OS X on my non-Apple PC? Oh wait, I don't have a choice there because Apple doesn't give me one.
- happy2k, on 10/11/2007, -5/+32Google is hijacking Windows Vista with their desktop search. Windows Vista search works better and faster. Why would anyone want to install the Google bloated ware? Google is just another evil-doer.
- wheatln2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28nice analysis there, I don't think many had considered what would happen if Vista started the internet and hence began to lean in on Google's personal space!
I don't know of anyone who's less than satisfied with Vista Search, me included. I though Google Desktop search rocked XP when it was released but now i can't imagine even considering installing it on Vista, there really is very little need. - Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24"Google doesnt want Microsoft to have a monopoly on searches.. for obvious reasons."
The obvious reason being that Google itself wants (to maintain) that monopoly? - jigsawhc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26I agree. If Google doesn't like they can always make their own OS and put their search functions in it and leave out Microsoft's
- Kazbaeden, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24"Google is only doing this because they think consumers should have access to better search technology. They won't waste money suing for fun."
Right, google is our hero, fending for the consumer. Funny, I haven't heard any actual consumers complaining. In fact, almost every agrees that Vista Search is a thousand times better than Google Desktop. Myself, when an application tries to install itself with some other unrelated application I put it on my bloatware list. Here's looking at you Google Desktop and Google Toolbar. - theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Exactly. This move, these litigations, are not for "choice" of the consumer. It's for cold hard cash in Google's money. Google only uses the "don't be evil" mantra to let rabid supporters take them from nothing to one of the biggest players. Now that they are, same rules don't apply. They will make cut-throat deals with computer manufacturers to supply their bloat into Dells (and then support Apple and their commercials saying how PCs are bloated... hm, funny how that works), they will sue MS so that a good intergrated feature is mutilated into obscurity (and then laugh that it's bad, knowing full well they litigated it to be bad), and open up doors to crazy index-related spyware.
Google will create a problem, offer a solution, and collect the money from pepole who still see Microsoft as evil and Google as their savior angel. - Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23"Why do you think Google pays Adobe $1.25 for each download of Flash or Acrobat which default installs their search toolbar?"
That's one of the reasons I've started shunning Google. (I don't even use my gmail account anymore; I do use Google Groups as an easy way to read Usenet, but that's it). I installed Roxio Copy & Convert a few weeks ago (just a simple audio/video format conversion tool), and it tried to get me in install frikkin Google Toolbar and Google Desktop. Then, the worst of all, Sun's JVM informed me that a security update was available. So I installed it, and it tried to get me to install Google Toolbar and Desktop (Google Toolbar was checked by default, Desktop wasn't (though I'm sure it will be in the future)). A damn security update for Java tries to install Google crapware?? Give me a break! Security updates should not be about installing unrelated products, period.
As for this issue, were I Microsoft, I'd be tempted to cease my previously planned changes (since Google insists on legal action regardless of what Microsoft does; note that Google doesn't have the guts to file antitrust suit on its own, rather they're lobbying state AGs to do it for them; Google, grow a pair and file a private antitrust suit!). But Microsoft should continue its planned changes; it'll look good in court as it demonstrates good-faith effort on their part, and it'll make Google look like the spoiled brats, full of a sense of self-entitlement, that they are.
BTW, Google Desktop Search sucks badly. It's not in the same league as Vista's desktop search. It's also spyware. And it's installed through malware-installation tactics much of the time, piggy-backing on other software installation operations. - BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -36/+57Actually, it's a very legit concern right now. As far as I understand it, the current 'compromise' is to have both Microsoft search and Google search installed on the system. This would mean you'd have 2 searches indexing the entire contents of your system, which would be less-than-desirable performance-wise.
The option for shutting down Microsoft's search completely should be available. - uggidi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24I like Google..but I think they should stop whining! Those who want to use google (deskop) search will use it anyway.Its up to the user to decide if he wants to use the in-built search in vista or the Google Desktop search.
- nixoru, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24People get down on Microsoft a lot, but they did something good this time around with Vista's search feature. Google needs to chill the fcuk out :-)
- Hercules, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20I may get dugg down but... Good for Microsoft.
An embedded search feature is something that with an operating system is SUPPOSED to be bundled and "default". Would we ask Apple to change Spotlight to Google Search for the default OS search? Of course not. No reason we should ask Microsoft to do the same thing.
What's next? We don't like Vista's kernel, so let's let users set the option to set the Linux kernel as default instead. It doesn't end.
Some things are innate and important to the function of an operating system. This is one of those things. Google needs to stop bitching. If there is a component in Vista that lets other search products function poorly, then yes it should be removed -- but to change the default search? Ludicrous. - homanh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+22I've never had as low an opinion of google as at this point in time.
Fact is there was a time when I might have even been considered anti-Microsoft.
Even I give credit to MS where its due: Windows XP was the best OS I have used [and I've used every OS out there] and it was the most significantly improved OS that MS had released since I can remember [or at least equiv. to the upgrade from DOS --> Win].
MS Windows Vista is a big improvement on XP and the search capabilities are one of the core improvement.
It seems like the anti-MS bandwagon jumping is getting seriously out of hand.
If MS had allowed its OS to only be run on proprietary hardware then there'd be an uproar - yet Apple does it.
If MS doesn't allow its OS to run on other people's hardware [like OSX] then again there'd be an uproar.
MS is hit hard for bundling their media player [the vista edition which is pretty damn good actually] yet OSX bundles heaps of software.
Now MS creates a powerful desktop search product as a major feature of their new OS which ironically apple has had for a long time and again people seem to have a problem with it.
Now I'm the first person to call out monopolistic acts when I see them but to be fair recently Microsoft has really started to get their act together and do some decently positive stuff [which i never thought I would say - as I'm sure many people here would also agree] but I'm also gonna give credit where credit's due.
MS has recently given us:
Windows XP - most stable [if u don't agree then at least accept that its the most stable Microsoft created] OS
Vista - very good product with little flaws - in fact the only flaw can be the lack of new features not the current ones.
Surface - new interface development.
Office 2007 - another MAJOR rework and again a killer new interface being a big feature.
Basically I see many former and current Google fans are giving Google warnings - that they are very close to becoming what Microsoft USED to be and its definitely not something to be proud of! - estvir, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21> This would mean you'd have 2 searches indexing the entire contents of your system, which would be less-than-desirable performance-wise.
Than bloody TURN IT OFF, it's really not that hard and I'm sure Google and their inifnite programmers could add in a little bit of code to do so and give the user the option. Also, even if you couldn't turn it off there wouldn't be a performance problem, a noticeable one anyway, as the Vista one doesn't index when you're actively using your PC so any 'slow down' from having both would be when the computer is not being used.
Seriously, Google has nothing like they had nothing with their whining about IE7 which was shot down by the courts. Do no evil, what a joke and some of you lap that rubbish up. - venom1221, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20why the hell would i want to disable vista's search in favor google's?
- Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17That's his point.
- Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16"They will make cut-throat deals with computer manufacturers to supply their bloat into Dells (and then support Apple and their commercials saying how PCs are bloated... hm, funny how that works)"
EXCELLENT point, theonlyvlad!
" they will sue MS so that a good intergrated feature is mutilated into obscurity (and then laugh that it's bad, knowing full well they litigated it to be bad), and open up doors to crazy index-related spyware.
Google will create a problem, offer a solution, and collect the money from pepole who still see Microsoft as evil and Google as their savior angel."
Well, that remains to be seen, though that does appear to be their strategy.
Google's not about user "choice", as evidenced by their paying Apple to lock Safari users into using Google's web search (can't even add a secondary search engine, let along change the default). Hypocrisy, thy name is "Google". - estvir, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22> Since when was including a file finder an antitrust violation?
It's just lame/desperate companies like Google, Real and the like taking advantage of the inability of the courts to have a clue when it comes to things like this.
Hey, look at that, Google stooped to the level of REAL, I mean, REAL ?! All they have to do is start giving out millions of CDs saying "90 FREE HOURS OF GOOGLE SEARCH" and have an acronym similar to AOL than the transformation is complete.
Wait, no, they need to start using pathetic insults like like our good ole buddy Jobs does, THAN the transformation will be complete. - fkr3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I imagine Google won't be happy until Microsoft installs everything Google makes, sets Google as the default everything and changes the default wallpaper to a picture of Google.
And renames it to something more fair - like Google Vista.
And maybe pays some royalties to Google for all of their contributions to the operating system. - thecray, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18I like google, but they seriously need to shut the ***** up.
Either that or put their money where their mouth is and let me do a MS Live search from the google.com frontpage. You know, in the interest of fairness since they're the clear leader in internet search engines. - Slikkster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17I have to say it's refreshing to see people (for the most part) not jumping on the "let's bash MS" bandwagon. Google, in my view, has become the big Kahuna that people should be concerned about. I don't want to live in a world dominated by that company. So, shut up, Google, and eat your humble pie. I'm sick and tired of reading about your latest whine. The day will come soon that you, too, will be victim of your own "success", and be forced into sanctions due to your own monopolization.
- insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Monopoly of search on an OS? Since when is that supposed to be a 3rd party feature? Any OS without searching, is broken. Plus what is google search going to add to it? Ads?
- estvir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Wait, so people aren't allowed to use something Microsoft created if:
a) They like it
b) It's superior
c) They get used to it for those reasons
Am I the only one who realises how amazingly stupid the premise of your comment is ? Please someone say no. If Microsoft creates something and people think it's better than GOOD JOB to them, it's now up to their competitors to convince users their product is superior. - insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I don't get it since when is an OSes ability to search your drive supposed to be a 3rd party feature? This is ridiculous. Media players, web browsers, searching ability, etc. All required features of an OS. This is real player all over again. If they win maybe Windows Vista NSE (No Search Edition) will be hitting the stores soon. Of course no one will buy it and it will sit there rotting.
It makes no sense to let other companies just pick a windows feature claim they want to compete with it and force it out of the OS.
Google should just release a registry file that just changes the "start search" on the start menu to "Google Search", that is all they really want. - Jammerdelray, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Google needs to sit back down on this one.
- kingatrock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10stick to capturing bum fights on google maps, google.
Google is circling around.. about to jump the shark. - SpookyET, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Vista Instant Search can be disabled by turning off the indexer, search host, and a few other search related services. It's not rocket science. If Google want to disable it, they can. What Google want is to give the user the ability to choose a different indexer and search engine in "Default Programs" in Control Panel as a user would choose a media player or browser.
That said, Google Desktop Search blows. It's slow. It's buggy. It's alien on a desktop. The interface is horrible. Furthemore, they bundle no search products with it, such as the toolbar and Google Gadgets, which by the way blow as well. Yahoo Widgets puts it to shame. On XP, they had a place. But, even for XP, I used Copernic Desktop Search, which is very good. It's not up to Vista Instant Search quality, but it's better than Windows Desktop Search for XP, which is alien and crippled in order for Microsoft to sell Vista. Every review I've seen gives Copernic Desktop Search 2.0 high marks and recommends it over all others.
Google, I will not install that rubbish. Your search sucks. Your sidebar sucks. Your gadgets suck. Why would I replace InstantSearch and Windows Sidebar with your rubbish? - KielKilla, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Guys, guys, guys... we are talking about windows here not some type of open source easily-to-customize OS. Now that's off my back I'd like to say I love the new search and from what I've seen google's desktop search is really not needed if search is built into the OS. It's just a search engine it's not complicated... It's not that big of a deal... why is there such a fuss?
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"@MiotheGreat--
Now if only MS would make those settings easily accessible--most people I know have no idea what a registry IS, let alone the commands necessary to edit the registry values."
It's very easy to do. The option is somewhere in Folder Options, I believe. Or in the service manager (Right in the task manager, too) or hell, Google can just kill it off with their installer. - jedioniram, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Choice might be good, but if a company releases a product with a good component in it, should they be forced to cripple their product to allow other companies to put their pieces in? I'm not sure if the the windows search is in fact being crippled by these changes, but if it is, I don't want the changes. Or they should play fair, I mean, when I use google to search for things on the internet, I don't want to see the ad's that google puts up for me, I want the option to see ads that some other company, maybe Microsoft, would like me to see. I mean, it's only fair that I have that choice while using their service.
- insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Exactly. Even if you can disable windows search feature, Microsoft is just going to remove the search box on the start menu. They aren't going to let a 3rd party put their search box there. I think it's messed up that every 3rd party feels they should be able to alter an entire OS, just to flaunt their one dumb product.
- libertao, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Wow, of course it all makes sense now. Thanks for that analysis.
- h0zae, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Safari on OSX, allows you to select text and search using finder or search using google - the default search in the search window is google - the default browser on OSX is safari --- I can't seem to be able to change this, is this a monopoly?
- toxicityj, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11interesting theory. although another reason google is so popular is that they make searching simple. that's evident in their toolbars, their website and anything else they touch. compare the Yahoo toolbar to the Google one. Yahoo is cluttered with crap you don't want/need. Google is just a search box. same with the site. Yahoo's site is cluttered with crap you don't want. when I'm searching for something, I don't need to see sports scores, the weather, etc. Aside from iGoogle (which is optional, thank God), Google keeps it simple with that one search box and some links.
but Google is really becoming annoying. Suing a company many times larger over basically not letting them search your computer with inferior software is incredibly stupid/pointless. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10This is going to do Google MUCH more harm than good, even if they win their "case". These public complaints against Microsoft damages their brand in a few different ways. First, it makes them seem very corporate and "not cool". Second, it's making Microsoft, arguably their largest competitor seem "right" about something, for once, in the eyes of many and thus in this situation, appears to be better than Google.
So basically, it's +1 for Microsoft, and -1 for Google. Google would've been MUCH better off had they not complained about this. Their desktop search product is not NEARLY as important as their brand / image. - fani, on 10/11/2007, -7/+15GOOGLE ***** SUCKS ....
BOYCOTT GOOGLE. Change your search engine from Google to something else....
Show them the right way... - arunforce, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11The concern is valid to a certain extent.
I'm using Vista, and I'm 95% satisfied with my file results. When I press the "start" button, I can just type what I want to run, and it will run the correct program 95% of the time. If Microsoft's search results were *****, like I expected, I'd want Google to go fix it up, but Microsoft did a great job on it, so Google needs to back off. - Escamillo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@BrandonMills
"Ok, the average user should be able to turn it off.
The average user isn't going to be manually editing his registry. ( nor should they be! ) "
I don't know if it's as simple as a registry change or not, but if that is the case (and I'll take the above posters word on that), then Google can easily change the setting themselves as part of installing Google Desktop. You'd think that a company that constantly brags about its thousands of PhDs could figure that out. Google is so full of crap on this issue. But what can you expect from a company that pays to install its products on the back of other software, malware-style and bloat-ware style? -
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is